Is There a Distinction Between Fact and Value?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RageSk8
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Value
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the distinction between statements of fact and statements of value, exploring philosophical perspectives on whether such a distinction exists. Participants engage with concepts related to ethics, epistemology, and the implications of this distinction in various contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that there is no difference between statements of fact and statements of value, suggesting that values can be seen as factual to those who believe in them.
  • Others propose that a distinction exists, referencing the 'is' - 'ought' distinction articulated by Hume, which separates factual premises from moral assertions.
  • One participant suggests that the meaning of words and concepts is context-dependent, implying that the distinction between fact and value may vary based on context.
  • Another viewpoint emphasizes that values may be relative and dependent on subjective interpretations, independent of the existence of the things being valued.
  • Concerns are raised about the temporary nature of facts, with examples given of how previously accepted facts can change over time as new data emerges.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the original question, seeking clarification on the distinctions being discussed.
  • There is a suggestion that ethical objectivity requires consensus among valuing communities, which may not always be achievable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on whether a distinction exists between fact and value, with multiple competing views remaining throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge their uncertainty regarding philosophical issues and the complexity of the topic, indicating that their understanding may evolve with further exploration.

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

  • Yes, of course.

    Votes: 6 85.7%
  • No, I am a pragmatist like you.

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Total voters
    7
  • #31
Even if you tell me a lie, I know a fact, but the fact that I know is that you are a 'liar', that this was the lie you told, and this is the fact that proves it, the value thereof as yet undetermined.Even if you tell me a lie, I know a fact, but the fact that I know is that you are a 'liar', that this was the lie you told, and this is the fact that proves it, the value thereof as yet undetermined.

So a value can also be a fact, and a fact can have value, or be a value, and they both can, as such of each other, change.

That's a Valuable Fact

Or is it a factual value or neither one? What it clearly is, is a paradox.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by Wuliheron

Or is it a factual value or neither one? What it clearly is, is a paradox.

Not really, as the fact of the existence of this planet, is a fact, and we cannot, (at least not at present to the best of my present knowledge) change that fact! hence there is no paradox, only the appearance of one, when judged in/on certain scales.

The rest is History!
 
  • #33
Not really, as the fact of the existence of this planet, is a fact, and we cannot, (at least not at present to the best of my present knowledge) change that fact! hence there is no paradox, only the appearance of one, when judged in/on certain scales.

Quantum Mechanics suggests a different possibility, that indeed we may exist and not exist at the same time. In addition, as I've stated many times before to you and others, there is no rational explanation for the origin, disposition, and validity of existence as we perceive it. Certainly I like to think I exist and act as if I do, but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets. Bottom line, nobody can really say what is happening. If they could, it would resolve quantum weirdness in general.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by RageSk8
Sorry for two things:
1. The amount of time before it has taken me to reply
2. The reality that I will probably not be able to give my argument tonight (I will soo though, sorry again, busy trying to get enrolled/financed for college next year and a trip to Germany this summer set up)

I am talking about the general distinction between a factual statement and a value statement, examples:


Examples of facts: "e=mc^2", "the gravitational pull between two objects varies inversely to the the sqaure of the distance between them", "To day is tuesday", "Albertsons is a supermarket", "It is 72 degrees outside"

Examples of Values: "Slavery is wrong", "'Blade 2' is a horrible movie", "It is really hot outside", "Albertsons is a great supermarket", "Homosexuality is not a sin"

Well, from this post, I am inclined to believe that there is a definite difference between facts and values. After all, values can vary because viewpoint, while facts are true, and unchangeable.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by wuliheron
Quantum Mechanics suggests a different possibility, that indeed we may exist and not exist at the same time. In addition, as I've stated many times before to you and others, there is no rational explanation for the origin, disposition, and validity of existence as we perceive it. Certainly I like to think I exist and act as if I do, but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets. Bottom line, nobody can really say what is happening. If they could, it would resolve quantum weirdness in general.

That is a statement that is a little premature, in light of the presently acknowledged 'ignorance' of current status of 'things'.

As for wishes and fishes, there are certainly lots of 'netcasters' in the world, just look at lottery ticket sales!
 
  • #36
That is a statement that is a little premature, in light of the presently acknowledged 'ignorance' of current status of 'things'.

All I said was that QM suggests these things. Therefore it provides a refutation of the classical western idea that paradox is unreal. That IS why it is called modern physics. You can claim its just a temporary misunderstanding, but the evidence accumulated over the last hundred years suggests otherwise. It suggests that the more extreme the perspective, the more obviously paradoxical it becomes.

It also suggests that people unwilling to accept this indeterminate state of affairs often have retarded progress in the area.
 
  • #37
Qm is of itself allright, but it is not an answer to everything, hence mypress to admission of the 'ignorance' that remains, as it might just be solved in the light of that knowledge.

But that,full knowledge, by itself, does not constitute proof, as that is subjectively decided.

Einstein himself stated that this was an illusion, just a very persistent one, I agree with that, and know why (to the best of my knowledge) he said it, as it is the manner of operation of light, and hence matter, for that matter!

Life does seem like a dream, all in ones head, after all.

Have FUN!
 
  • #38
just wanted to kick this back up to the top for when Rage gets back to us.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K