TheVat

This seems to shift the defined meaning of true to fit your contrast. A true statement about reality can be just as immutable as a fact. Indeed, it's hard to see the difference, except that facts are generally synthetic (in Kant's sense), i.e. empirically based, while some true statements can be analytic, e.g. triangles have three linear sides. We don't need empiricism to state that about triangles because triangles are by definition three-sided. Same with "all bachelors are unmarried." Such truths might be called "hidden tautologies." Again, people are welcome to come up with idiosyncratic definitions of true/truth, but in the forum's domain of logic/epistemology, it seems more productive to use the formal definitions for that domain. Yes! That's the epistemological clarity one needs for finding an agreed-upon meaning. An approximation is true when it references (or implies) its own degree of approximateness.

Seems to be a prevalent notion in the manosphere that testosterone levels strongly correlate with tradmale attitude and physical prowess. (Often paired with the "soyboy" mythology) Doubt that endocrinologists would back that up.

So just toss out science, empirical observations, and other intersubjective agreements and let truth just mean "my opinion"? Toss out Russell? Toss out the dictionary, too? It's just my opinion that Uranus is farther away than Cleveland? Even after 250 years, hundreds of thousands of observations and measurements of Uranus (snicker), and the accrual of a vast mountain of unequivocal evidence... maybe Cleveland is actually farther away? As @sethoflagos and others have pointed out, truth and fact have been used synonymously for the past several centuries, and dictionaries have recognized this. It would seem to me that truth, by definition, is not just your personal perspective.

Seems like it would if the most common definition of truth, correspondence to a state of affairs in the world (Bertie Russell et al), were in play. It's a fact that Uranus is farther away than Cleveland. It's also true that Uranus is farther than Cleveland. In both statements, an ongoing correspondence to reality is key. Neither is just "a narrative," as I understand the word. Unless @npts2020 meant something different.

There seems to be a lot of doubt, actually. Because the symbols used in hieroglyphic writing look like little pictures of people, animals and objects, it's sometimes mistakenly assumed they were meant purely as pictograms, i.e. literally those objects. Scholarly summaries I've seen say some hieroglyphs signify sounds in the ancient Egyptian language, just as the characters in the Roman alphabet do. Others are ideographic signs, which represent concepts but don’t have a sound attached. This means language is being represented, and narratives - not just some procedural waggle dance.

NPREV battery recycling has a math problemFor some electric vehicle batteries, it costs more to recycle them than they're worth. That creates all kinds of problems, which a new Colorado law aims to solve.Colorado wants to get producers to be responsible for a battery's end-of-life path. And ensure that valuable minerals from EV batteries get recycled into new batteries (or if the batteries are still good, reuse them for power storage banks).

Same here - maybe it's that philosophy is a set of tools? As in, one can use them without taking on some identity. I own a blender and this morning puree some bananas and blueberries - it doesn't make me a blender. Good point. Both facts and true propositions can be contigent on time. Ancient Greeks believed the planet Venus was two separate celestial bodies. When it appeared in the east before sunrise, they called it Phosphorus, and when it appeared in the west after sunset, they called it Hesperus. While it was never true, or a fact, that Venus was two separate planets, it is true that Greeks once believed there were two planets and gave Venus two names. And it's also a fact that, due to a former false belief among Greeks, Venus had two names.

Emily advises on electrical engineering and rocket science.... Eva, wet a gap or propagate wave. At NASA, name caps "O," reaffirm riff. Aerospace man a Santa?

Probably. It is just a place for outrage to go, and possibly remind a few career people at the EPA (if their box is flooded) that their agency is out of step with the nation and the world. And that the Lard Turnip hasn't cowed everyone into submission. To your second paragraph: amen. I was thinking tar and feathers, but CECOT works, too. Perhaps both.

The EPA is proposing to weaken regulations on emissions from heavy trucks and buses with diesel engines. You can submit comments at this link: US EPAPublic Hearing and Public Comments: Amendments and Noncon...Comment and Public Hearing Information for Proposed Rule: Amendments and Nonconformance Penalties for Model Year 2027 and Later Heavy-Duty Highway Engines and Amendments to Inducements for SCR-Equippe

Nope. The breakthrough paper on transformer architecture was almost ten years ago. And IBM started messing around with large language models in the 1990s. Do your research. Maybe leave the AI assistant behind when you do.

Maybe his parents were black? 😎

The date bar froze, stopped registering taps, but the first couple guesses worked okay. Some guesses allow common sense, e.g. mud artifacts probably from an arid region. Greco-Roman statuary, stelae, reliefs, frescoes are fairly recognizable.

Glad you cleared that up! I think we can just accept that any true proposition about the world is what you have decided. After all, you're a self-proclaimed philosopher.

Sounds like you're having a go at taking the definition of procedural memory and altering it in some personal interpretation that doesn't really fit with what cognitive science has learned about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_memory

Was speaking historically (from the faux persona of someone who only yesterday heard of soccer). (One child and I used to play, practicing with a Limey neighbor and another urchin in the street; my kid was then in a youth league for a year or so)

I was reading at BBC about how Nigel F resigned and happened to notice there's some sort of international sporting event involving something called a cup and people kicking balls around a field. There seems to be some immensely complex system for determining who wins this cup, involving 30-50 years of playoffs and a team of mathematicians using advanced combinatorics and possibly string theory to determine arcane "rankings" and decide who enters the finals. Argentina and Brazil seem to be good at it, whatever it is they do on the field (seems to involve passing a ball around and then maybe once every hour or so some actually interesting action that lasts about five seconds), possibly from forcing toddlers to train in special reeducation camps or "favelas"'as they're called, starting at age 18 months. Not sure why the finals are being held in some backward and xenophobic banana republic with baking hot summers and large numbers of citizens carrying guns around. Perhaps it's that the country's authoritarian leader is in bed with the president of the sport's governing body? You would think it wouldn't be that hard to grab the couple while they're locked in one of their amorous embraces and drop them down a mineshaft or similar.

Emily has been watching the World Cup playoffs especially how officials are handling an outbreak of bloating among teams eating American cuisine. Keep one gas, Sam? Ref, football lab, to offer massage, no peek. (Balogun's snug o' lab.) Emily also notes how this gassy trend has affected her favorite team which has sent several players to the playoffs: Emirate metal up, it's FIFA sign: IT area dip, Arsenal planes rapid aerating is a FIFA stipulate met. A rime.

Not really. Several inaccuracies here, which I don't have time to get into. Signals leading up to the action potential (graded potentials in the dendrites) fluctuate continuously in size and strength. The neuron translates this graded, analog voltage into a digital spike frequency. But there are several threshold effects that are analogic. And as others point out, many aspects of the physical world (especially in the Standard Model) are not binary.

Pecking of the cloaca - write a song about that , latter-day Gilberts. In the genus of Prunella There was a naughty fellah Twas in Malaysia, down in Malacca, He was always pecking a cloaca. In trees and in bushes, Molesting birdie tushes, This fulfilled his need To banish rival seed Ensuring his paternity And a genomic place In Eternity.

This poster seems to fall prey to idiosyncratic definitions and unsupported conjectures - I had to, with regret, withdraw. Quite a bit of evidence in neuroscience that brains have both analog and digital features. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37608987/

Yes, when the OP mentioned spatial skills and extra-pair mating in chickadees, my mind went immediately to The Mikado. The song's penetrating analysis of blighted affection in titmice and its correlation with higher suicide rates among (presumably cuckolded by extra-pair shenanigans) male titmice remains a staple of ornithology.

Yep, emotion is just as effective at clouding the truth as it is at motivating people towards the truth. There's a good reason a judge instructs the jury to set their emotional responses aside and coolly consider the facts in reaching a verdict. "The defendant looks like a real dickhead to me, so he's probably guilty" wouldn't be a reliable path towards justice.

How has a judge not promptly dismissed the charging document? There is not the slightest reason to believe this was anything but someone pulling loose shreds of paint from a pool - a task that some maintenance staff will have to do anyway. We shouldn't waste time analyzing Pirro's Orwellian hogwash. Line the bottom with all the pages of the Epstein files coated with a good marine-grade epoxy sealant or some such.

Edited to add: I think several have touched on the way that some statements (and also propositions, for those who don't want to specifically cement this in language) do not really have a truth value. This seems especially the case with contingent propositions. Let's take: The King of France is bald. If France still had a King, then we could assign some truth value to that. A King is either bald or he's not. We can empirically determine if the proposition is true. The truth is contingent on the circumstance of France having monarchy based on a patriarchal system. But if France has no monarchy, then the proposition is neither true nor false since there simply is not an object to which the sentence's subject corresponds. This is what philosophers like Saul Kripke would call "a failed speech act." The world is full of nonsense which consists in such failed speech acts. Some here, like @Gees seem to be wary of language, possibly because of the occurrence such failed speech acts. But some statements are not prone to this kind of failure, and do correspond well to some existent state of affairs, and I think we can study these without too much trouble. How about this: All facts are empirically verified propositions about the world, thus demonstrated to be true propositions? Not all truths however require facts. The latter is because some truths are inherent in the definitions of the words expressing them (which are called "analytic truths"), like e.g. All bachelors are unmarried. We don't need any facts for that sentence to be true - it is true by virtue of what its words mean. Or similarly, All triangles have three sides.