Fact V.s. Value

Is there a difference between statements of facts and statements of values?

  1. Yes, of course.

    6 vote(s)
    85.7%
  2. No, I am a pragmatist like you.

    1 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. 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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. 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.
     
  4. Well, it's good that everyone is so willing to give their ideas and opinions, unless you have to really think, that is...
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. I'll see Rage's reasoning, before answering the poll.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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?
     
  10. Let me try to define what we're talking about here:

    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

     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. "should be" could fall under the multiple histories theory(my obssesion)
     
  14. 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?

    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.
     
  15. 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!
     
  16. 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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2003
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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?
     
  19. 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.
     
  20. very interesting analogy.
     
  21. Nothing can. The concept of "fact" is an ideal, a goal. Science IMHO gets us closest, but still not quite there.

    On the other hand, an objectively verifiable observation is as close as possible to a fact. But even this is clouded by the neccessary uncertainties that must exist.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2003
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook
Similar discussions for: Fact V.s. Value
Loading...