View Poll Results: Is there a difference between statements of facts and statements of values?
Yes, of course. 7 77.78%
No, I am a pragmatist like you. 2 22.22%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

Register to reply

Fact V.s. Value

by RageSk8
Tags: fact
Share this thread:
RageSk8
#1
Apr10-03, 07:21 PM
RageSk8's Avatar
P: 118
I would argue that there isn't a difference between a statement about fact and a statement about value. Before I do, however, I would like to see the respones to the above pole.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Mysterious source of ozone-depleting chemical baffles NASA
Water leads to chemical that gunks up biofuels production
How lizards regenerate their tails: Researchers discover genetic 'recipe'
zk4586
#2
Apr10-03, 07:44 PM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
This topic has caught my eye. I voted that there is a distinction between statements of fact and statements of value (the 'is' - 'ought' distinction), whereby factual premises, statements about how things really are must be seperated from assertions entailing how things ought to be (obviously you can see that Hume has influenced me). But, please, I'm certainly curious about why you feel there is no distinction.
zk4586
#3
Apr11-03, 05:00 PM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
Well, it's good that everyone is so willing to give their ideas and opinions, unless you have to really think, that is...

Lifegazer
#4
Apr11-03, 05:15 PM
P: n/a
Fact V.s. Value

Originally posted by zk4586
This topic has caught my eye. I voted that there is a distinction between statements of fact and statements of value (the 'is' - 'ought' distinction), whereby factual premises, statements about how things really are must be seperated from assertions entailing how things ought to be (obviously you can see that Hume has influenced me). But, please, I'm certainly curious about why you feel there is no distinction.
That was a good response.
But what a 'thing' is, seems dependent upon what a thing can be.
Being and 'value' seem intrinsic, to me. I think I'll side with Rage on this one.
wuliheron
#5
Apr11-03, 06:01 PM
P: 1,967
In and of themselves words and concepts have no intrinsic meaning, we give them meaning and we do so according to the context. Whether or not there is a distinction between fact and value then just depends upon the context. Up has no meaning without down, but saying that up is indistinguishable from down denies the evidence that the word obviously can have meaning and can be useful given a context. Likewise, context has no meaning without content. Thus, Height has no meaning without its constituents of up and down.
Mentat
#6
Apr11-03, 07:16 PM
P: 3,715
I'll see Rage's reasoning, before answering the poll.
zk4586
#7
Apr11-03, 09:13 PM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
That was a good response.
But what a 'thing' is, seems dependent upon what a thing can be.
Being and 'value' seem intrinsic, to me.
Interesting post, as well as Wuliheron's. But it seems like value would be relative. Something's value would depend upon our own subjective interpretation of its meaning or use or purpose, ect. independent of its existence.
Mentat
#8
Apr12-03, 12:25 PM
P: 3,715
As a matter of fact, I don't think I really understand the question, that is the topic of this thread. Could you please explain what you mean, RageSk8?
zk4586
#9
Apr12-03, 09:14 PM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
Let me try to define what we're talking about here:

fact / value

Distinction between assertions about how things really are (fact) and how things ought to be (value). Drawn by Hume, but also defended by Stevenson, Hare, and other ethical noncognitivists, the distinction is usually taken to entail that claims about moral obligation can never be validly inferred from the truth of factual premises alone. It follows that people who agree completely on the simple description of a state of affairs may nevertheless differ with respect to the appropriate action to take in response to it.
This site is helpful for the sort of argument I assume Rage (wherever he may have gotten to) will be delivering any day now:

http://www.filosofia.pro.br/Henry_Jackman.htm

...the relationship between fact and value (along with a suspicion of any supposed dichotomy between them) is a theme that can be found in many pragmatists. Indeed, the view most commonly associated with pragmatism, James’s notorious claim that truth was "the expedient in our way of thinking", and that "absolute truth" was that which "no further experience will ever alter," is, in an important sense, just a symptom of his underlying pragmatism about value, and one could endorse such a view of truth for other reasons without thereby being a pragmatist
James takes the existence of objective values to require our eventual actual agreement about what to value. This line of thought shows up the most explicitly in James’s "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life", where ethical objectivity is understood as requiring an actual settlement about what competing preferences should be satisfied. A merely potential settlement does not seem to be enough for James, so if our valuing practices never reaches a consensus amount initially competing preferences, then they can never be more than just that, competing preferences with no ‘objective’ fact about which one should have been satisfied.

Furthermore James suggests that ethical objectivity requires not only that there will eventually be a type of convergence among our needs and moral views, but also that such a convergence will endure. The objectivity of ethical values in the world requires the real endurance of a valuing community, and if all valuers disappear, the existence of objective value will have turned out to be illusionary.
RuroumiKenshin
#10
Apr12-03, 09:57 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by RageSk8
I would argue that there isn't a difference between a statement about fact and a statement about value. Before I do, however, I would like to see the respones to the above pole.
In my opinion, I think values are factual to the person who believes in them. Facts are true, until proven wrong?(is there a special name for things like that...hypothesis?) This reminds me..."Politics is for the moment, an equation is for eternity". The equation is a fact.
Mentat
#11
Apr12-03, 09:59 PM
P: 3,715
Rage, you're trying to discern whether there is a difference between the way things really are, and the way they should be? First off, is there really an established "should be"? Secondly, it is obvious that not everyone's opinion, of how things ought to be, is fulfilled in how things really are.
RuroumiKenshin
#12
Apr12-03, 10:16 PM
P: n/a
"should be" could fall under the multiple histories theory(my obssesion)
zk4586
#13
Apr12-03, 11:01 PM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
In my opinion, I think values are factual to the person who believes in them. Facts are true, until proven wrong?(is there a special name for things like that...hypothesis?) This reminds me..."Politics is for the moment, an equation is for eternity". The equation is a fact.
The equation is a fact only insomuch as it accurately fits or portrays a collection of data. Can we assume that it will fit all future data? If it doesn't than it breaks down, it ceases to be of value. Can we call such things facts?

Rage, you're trying to discern whether there is a difference between the way things really are, and the way they should be? First off, is there really an established "should be"? Secondly, it is obvious that not everyone's opinion, of how things ought to be, is fulfilled in how things really are.
Lets just wait until Rage gets back and can tell us his ideas. From what I've seen of Rage's philosophy in the past, his perspicacity and cleverness, I'm sure his posts will be enlightening.
RuroumiKenshin
#14
Apr12-03, 11:13 PM
P: n/a
The equation is a fact only insomuch as it accurately fits or portrays a collection of data. Can we assume that it will fit all future data? If it doesn't than it breaks down, it ceases to be of value. Can we call such things facts?
Facts are true until proven wrong. That is to say, they are...temporary. Ether was once a fact, but now it has become factitous.
Facts only portray the given data, and until we find more data, we could edit this fact.


this is an excellent thread; more intellectual than I had expected. Good job, Rage!
zk4586
#15
Apr12-03, 11:47 PM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
Facts are true until proven wrong. That is to say, they are...temporary. Ether was once a fact, but now it has become factitous.
Facts only portray the given data, and until we find more data, we could edit this fact.
Granted, I'm still unsure about many philosophical issues (either because I haven't learned enough about them, haven't studied all the sides, or I haven't considered them long enough), but ether was never a fact, merely a part of the scientific ontology back when we were unsure as to what the upper regions of space consisted of. Nevertheless, our positing ether as an actual rarefied element that composed space didn't give it existence any more than our creation of unicorns and other mythological beasts meant that such things had a factual existence...whatever that is...oh boy, I'm going to bed.
FZ+
#16
Apr13-03, 06:42 AM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Facts are true until proven wrong. That is to say, they are...temporary. Ether was once a fact, but now it has become factitous.
Facts only portray the given data, and until we find more data, we could edit this fact.


this is an excellent thread; more intellectual than I had expected. Good job, Rage!
Hmm.... I disagree. Facts are that which have been proven objectively to be correct. Hence, in science, there is no such thing as a fact.
zk4586
#17
Apr13-03, 10:35 AM
zk4586's Avatar
P: 90
Hmm.... I disagree. Facts are that which have been proven objectively to be correct. Hence, in science, there is no such thing as a fact.
FZ, if you don't think science can reveal facts (by your definition of a fact as something which has been proven objectively to be correct), then what can?
Mr. Robin Parsons
#18
Apr13-03, 10:52 AM
P: 1,560
Lets try it this way, a one dollar bill is, in fact, a piece of paper, with some fancy printing upon it's faces.

It's value, is something that is mutable, and changing, inasmuch as it's value is only related to it's factual existance, by personalized/idiosyncratic Perception(s).

The fact of it's existance is not changed by perceptions, only by actions, (burn it) whereas it's value is changable by perception.

A Stated Fact is meant to represent a self evident truth, a stated value is a self percieved 'truth'.

The differentiation of the inner opinion that is value, and the outer observation (drawn from within) that is, if described accurately, fact.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fact or conjecture Cosmology 0
Famous fact Classical Physics 4
Theory or Fact Astronomy & Astrophysics 3
Can a theory become a fact? General Physics 9
What is Fact? Beyond the Standard Model 3