studiot

Consider this: It is a fact that I have a book in my library entitled Organic Chemistry. I expect it to be the truth for exchemist , sethoflagos, charony and others. It may be the truth that their books are the same as mine. But my book is by McMurry, yet theirs may be by another author. Even if their book is by McMurry it still may not be the same as mine since mine is the fourth edition. Even if theirs is the same edition, they books may not be considered the same, just two copies of the one book. So I think one reason to have different words is to be able to express different concepts, both separately and in combination.

Not sure if the moisture in the still is drawn out of the ground by the heath robinson greenhouse into the air, where it then condenses again and runs down inside the device to the collector.

Excellent question, sorry I don't know the answer, but that is the whole point of a discussion. +1 In regards of the the Maths comment, I agree this is very disconcerting as I discovered many years ago as a pupil. It springs out of the need to learn in what I call a spiral approach and occurs in many disciplines. We have to start somewhere and as we gain knowledge and progress simple versions of the topic are often presented. The trouble comes when the teacher tries to drive a point home by being too adamant, even to the point of cutting short a brighter pupil who asks questions. Another good example of this occurs in elementary Physics. A vector is a quantity with magnitude and direction, right ? Well not quite since the zero vector has no direction, but how many teachers present this last fact. This is being discussed in this thread about AI, where @CharonY is arguing strongly that AIs do not make good teachers. It takes a good teacher to strike the right balance between pedantry and future progress.

Is this a more sophisticated version of the 'Desert Still' ?

Don't be sorry, I'm happy to explain. But tell me is there a language barrier ? - Are we communicating through a translator ? I chose those three subjects because of their link to symmetry and design. Here is an introduction to the wonderful book about symmetry by a professor of Mathematics who went to the Alhambra to study symmetry in Islamic art and then wrote this book. You see I could have chosen many different combinations of subjects, all related by the patterns of symmetry. The point about the Alhambra is that in my history at school we spent a term studying medieval Church architecture and the many types of (symmetric) arches they built. Obviously we also learned other stuff and a bit about the wars of the time. But the Physics of why they built the structures they did and the maths of how the Romans knew where to start the arch supports for their aqueducts and viaducts tie things together.

Thank you both for enquiring more deeply into the subject, yet showing much common sense. True or truth is also extensively used in Science and Engineering to mean 'correct or fitting or some other specialist meaning', often echoing Seth's Germanic derivation. Carpenters and mechanical engineers have a true angle, (meaning a right angle) a true cut , a true and they test edges and surfaces for truth (straightness or flatness). Draftsmen, surveyors have a true section (meaning both axes are at the same scale) and true to scale. None of these truths are facts.

I have no idea how this is connected to my post. Please explain. Why does everyone seem to think History is only about battles ?

No I don't think that will help tie things together at all. What was wrong with the example I gave ?

Of course, but academics pride themselves in their alleged thinking superiority. the example I gave is excellent because it (can) study the same subject from three different viewpoints, linking them together.

Well think this is a jolly good idea. +1 But,as swansont says, the cross fertilisation needs to be sensible. The UK has a long tradition of forcing 'liberal studies' on STEM students.But Art, and History and Geometry can very easily fertilise each other.

That does not allow for the acknowledgement 'I don't know' something but I know it has a value'. If you believe something you consider it true or a fact. In fact (!) are therefore not absolute or immutable. We do since that value conforms to many possible formulae. However we can't know the exact momentum of a particular particle at a particular point. Actually this is very close to my point, that no one seems interested in, about a difference between truth and fact. The word fact is not standalone; it is meaningless by itself it has to refer to something else containing the substance of the fact. Truth on the other hand can indeed be a subject. Consider 'Truth is a virtue' has meaning, but 'Fact is a virtue' does not.

Three have been some very recent discoveries about this, that were shown on the BBC recent new series 'Human', that I found fascinating.

Because you equated truth with belief by saying If what I believe can be called true in some way then God exists for some folks (not me though). I also disagree with this statement that that all facts are verifiable. It is to do with knowledge and, surprisingly, belief. The are no known full analytical solutions to the Navier Stokes equations so it is believed that none exist. A simpler example might be something nearer home to you. What is the land area of Greenland ? There must be a land area and it must therefore be a fact. But the value is unknown, because we can't verify it, so we have a best estimate, but you will only find the word estimate in the best tables of 'facts'. I didn't think of the morning star v evening star about the two bodies bit. Thank you for that +1

You are talking about the difference between fact and something called belief, not something called truth. Otherwise you have just proved the truthful fact of the existence of God. So facts are immutable but can change ? How does that work ? In the light of the rest of your post please consider this picture then state the subject of the picture (which surely is a fact ?)

So have you, or anybody else, identified any difference between truth and fact ? I think I may have one

What do you think about my points re time? What is the most populous country in the world ? It used to be China but apparently it is now India. What was the area of the United States a) Before Alaska was acquired ? b) After Alaska was acquired ? Were these not facts at one time but not another ?

Do we all see the same questions on this site ?

Unlike chalk and cheese I do not know of any universal hard and fast distinction between truth and fact, only that the distinction is very blurred. This was why I started the thread. It is clear from all the responses in this and other threads that there are nearly as many interpretations as there are thinkers. I myself, do not have a clear distinction. So I have tried to have a reasonable conversation with each member, as they put their own version, in the hope that I might learn something. I have yet to find a resolution. I was indeed having a reasonable discussion with @Gees, given that they are rather delicate. But no I do not agree with everything they said either. Perhaps that is why members are trying out different examples, to see how they fit with personal interpretations.

Too hard for me guv.

How is this not in direct contradiction with Sounds a bit like the biblical denial by Peter to me.

I have underlined the difference between Gees' post and one in another thread where the poster feels they can lay down the law on just about everything and carries on with complete disregard for the insights of others.

So what's all this procedural v symbolic nonsense ?

Do you really think it a good idea to drive other members away ?

I've seen many ways to think in my lifetime. I myself am best described as the observer of my mind/ brain. Virtually since I was born I've been sitting back watching my thoughts and trying to understand them. I can't even get this right, though. My translation fails often because symbolic cognition can’t parse procedural statements correctly. I’m not claiming special knowledge; I’m describing a mismatch between two cognitive systems. I’ve spent my life observing my own mind trying to bridge that gap, and I still fail at it regularly. What is disturbing to myself and others is the way you keep contradicting yourself. I have underlined a persistent contradiction on your part, whereby you keep insisting that there are only two ways to think and then write what is underlined.

Have you been at the tequila ? None of the above is true. Why do you think all those enormous wind farms are offshore just above sea level ? There are no mountains on Shetland, yet it is the windiest place in the UK. There are huge solar farms in the Sahara, with electricity being exported to southern Europe.