16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

BTW How sure are you that I gave you a neg and why do you believe it was out of spite?

Wild stabs in the dark.

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Wild stabs in the dark.

Can we please just discuss the topic, without all these emotional appeals and excuse's to dodge my question's; PLEASE, just answer the (fucking) question's.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Absolute truth does exist, and you even know about it. What is the one thing that you can tell me about the universe that applies to all life, all matter, all forces, everything? You can tell me that there will be change -- whether the change is constant or intermittent, whether it is slow or fast, whether it is immediate or takes billions of years, it will happen, because change is an absolute truth of reality. Another absolute truth is balance, because in all of this change, balance tries to reassert itself over and over.

No it doesn't, it's just part of the process...

Douglas Adam's puddle is a good analogy, that explains why you're wrong...

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Can we please just discuss the topic, without all these emotional appeals and excuse's to dodge my question's; PLEASE, just answer the (fucking) question's.

You were asked about a mention of “ironic” before; I find this to be ironic, given your pattern of not answering requests for clarification when you make a comment. You engage in evasion and sometimes a strategy of “a good offense is the best defense” as it appears you are doing here.

Also the farce of pretending you didn’t downvote posts when you did. They are anonymous up until the point where you engage in a charade like this.

If you can’t post in good faith, don’t post at all.

17 hours ago, swansont said:

You were asked about a mention of “ironic” before; I find this to be ironic, given your pattern of not answering requests for clarification when you make a comment. You engage in evasion and sometimes a strategy of “a good offense is the best defense” as it appears you are doing here.

Also the farce of pretending you didn’t downvote posts when you did. They are anonymous up until the point where you engage in a charade like this.

If you can’t post in good faith, don’t post at all.

I sometimes wonder about biased views, my pattern of behaviour seems to piss off some more than other's; to the point that I wonder if we're reading the same thread.

I didn't pretend I didn't neg him, read it without the blinkers, I just asked question's.

Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised), all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's; as I've previously mentioned, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted, so if I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify.

On 7/19/2026 at 9:34 AM, dimreepr said:

That's ironic, for some...

I will note that there was a request to explain this, and you have still not done so.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised), all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's; as I've previously mentioned, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted, so if I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify

Moderator Note

I'll make this official. Don't you think this pattern of drunk posting is unfair to those you're discussing issues with? It's SO frustrating that you think your questions are pertinent when you also admit you failed to reread the parts you're being asked to clarify. I don't want to see any more of these attacks on members who come here in good faith to discuss issues with above average thinkers. Perhaps you need to stop defending your "pattern of behavior" and figure out why you think it's preferable to piss people off with it. You are the only person here who thinks you're reading a different thread. Doesn't that suggest something to you?

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

I will note that there was a request to explain this, and you have still not done so.

That ship has sailed. It is screamingly obvious that the ellipsis in his comment represented an unspoken accusation of dishonesty on my part. He will not clarify this, as he would be invited to provide examples and fail, betraying the reality of who is genuinely dishonest here.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I sometimes wonder about biased views, my pattern of behaviour seems to piss off some more than other's; to the point that I wonder if we're reading the same thread.

Again, screamingly obvious that those he pisses off are predominantly (though not exclusively) those he accuses of dishonesty (see above), 'emotional appeals' (see above), 'gaslighting' (see above - the neg came from me), 'dodging the question', etc. All unwarranted ad hominem attacks over what are more his stock in trade. This comment itself is a prima facie case of his own regular gaslighting.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't pretend I didn't neg him, read it without the blinkers, I just asked question's.

Are we all really that blinkered? Or is it simply more gaslighting.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Other than my drunken post's that were, admittedly, inappropriate (for which I've apologised),

I am unable to discern any significant change in behaviour since the 'drunken' defence. I'm inclined now to suspect that that defence itself may have been a dishonest tactic to evade closer scrutiny. May be wrong, but... (ellipsis substituting for 'judge for yourselves')

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

all I've done is ask what I think are pertinent question's;

Patently untrue. A lot of rhetorical questions and downright offensive statements packed in there too.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

, I'm not a fast reader and I haven't reread the thread, only responded to when I'm quoted

Patently untrue. Several instances in the last couple of pages alone of him butting into dialogues between others.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I've missed a request for clarification in this thread, other than in my pissed phase, I apologise and I will be happy to try and clarify.

... but not to apologies for the systematic pattern of abuse.

In a thread dedicated to the nature of truth and honesty, I find your posts ironic...

Cross posted with @Phi for All

So sorry, perhaps I spoke out of turn here.

On 7/29/2026 at 1:38 AM, sethoflagos said:

You might find the wiipedia page on Abstract & Concrete interesting.

The philosophical concensus is that abstracts such as numbers exist independently of space-time (and its contents) and therefore in a sense go beyond metaphysics: they are thought to be entirely valid in the realities of all possible universes.

Thanks.I did look at your link. It seems an inexhaustible subject -and why I am relieved I never studied philosophy.

Could we equally ask "why do people think these categories of experiences are valid?"

Do these enquiries do any more than scratch an itch?

When I say I am relieved not to have gone down this path,it is not to demean those that do or did but just to acknowledge that my comparative dullness of spirit has unwittingly spared me from a waste of my limited talents (albeit a loss of interesting and demanding conversations)

Is it any different ,I wonder from my lack of athletic ability has spared me from what I perceive as the mainly waste of time involved in following or practicing sport?

That would apply to most activities I suppose.Are we all here "killing time" in some sense and trying to find our own particular expertise where we can try to kill it most satisfyingly?

(Unless ,eg we are in Ukraine where they are just trying to survive -and prevail)

Btw I don't think I went off topic there;I think maybe I wandered off any topic 🙂

5 minutes ago, geordief said:

Could we equally ask "why do people think these categories of experiences are valid?"

I did enjoy that post - a lot there to relate to. I think the psychos call it Weltschmerz.

I'm no expert in general philosophy, but I do have an interest in the philosophy of science as I do like to understand the reason why I do stuff the way I do it. For me as a practising engineer, my interactions with other engineers gets a bit of framing:

Naturalism: the 'no miracles' clause. ie prayer is no substitute for employing the best welders.

Realism: pipes and pumps exist independently of our minds, and we perceive them sufficiently similarly to have common grounds for non-random discussion. This establishes a territory for agreement ie a space where we can have a common absolute understanding of truth.

Scientific realism: this is specifically the narrower aspect of realism that I've described above. It is the foundation of the scientific method, and therefore should be an area where all active members of this site might be expected to agree quite closely.

Throughout this thread my posts I think I've defended (my understanding of) scientific realism with a deliberately straight bat. I expected a bit of kick back from those who've previously shown themselves to hold anti-realist views, but it's been interesting to see the variety of alternate views.

At times, it seemed that we were reenacting the Science Wars.

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

At times, it seemed that we were reenacting the Science Wars.

Am I glad that I wasted no time reading any of the claptrap referred to in your reference or studying any of the terminology involved.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Am I glad that I wasted no time reading any of the claptrap referred to in your reference or studying any of the terminology involved.

🤔

11 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

🤔

This reference was much more interesting.

On 7/29/2026 at 1:38 AM, sethoflagos said:

You might find the wiipedia page on Abstract & Concrete interesting.

Yet it still suffers from that all too human desire to classify and pigeonhole all things.

As such it misses out on the fact that fiction can affect the real world about us.

(My usual example of this is Harry Potter, though there are examples aplenty available.)

This is partly why I commented that this thread is not about 'Real'.

Another pair of words to be wary of in this context is material v immaterial.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

As such it misses out on the fact that fiction can affect the real world about us.

(My usual example of this is Harry Potter, though there are examples aplenty available.)

How does that fiction differ from simple miscalculations/misdirections?- eg the Persian King Darius(?) and the "You will destroy a great empire" prophesy at Delphi

Edited July 31Jul 31 by geordief

3 hours ago, geordief said:

How does that fiction differ from simple miscalculations/misdirections?- eg the Persian King Darius(?) and the "You will destroy a great empire" prophesy at Delphi

Obviously I was asleep during that history lesson so I had to look it up.

Google has a different version of the story but I get the gist.

The difference between Harry Potter and the Delphi Oracle is that users (not necessarily the prophesiers) believed the prophesies to be' true'.

I can't think anyone believes Harry Potter to be 'true' except within the context of the books.

Prophesies may be lies, deliberate untruths, fiction is generally known and recognised to be 'made up'.
(I know that some call some fiction lies such as "The Man Who Never Was" in WWII a made up character the Allies knew to be untrue that deceived the Germans."

But yes lies, pretence and deceit can also affect the real world around us, as noted.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

Obviously I was asleep during that history lesson so I had to look it up.

Google has a different version of the story but I get the gist.

The difference between Harry Potter and the Delphi Oracle is that users (not necessarily the prophesiers) believed the prophesies to be' true'.

I can't think anyone believes Harry Potter to be 'true' except within the context of the books.

Prophesies may be lies, deliberate untruths, fiction is generally known and recognised to be 'made up'.
(I know that some call some fiction lies such as "The Man Who Never Was" in WWII a made up character the Allies knew to be untrue that deceived the Germans."

But yes lies, pretence and deceit can also affect the real world around us, as noted.

Would the relationship between the physical world and the world of ideas bear any relation to the debuncted notion of "action at a distance" that "explained" Newtonian Gravity ? (Is Localism the theory that took its place-and which Bell has again ,apparently upended with his infernal statistical analysis?)

There seems (to me) to be no obvious chain of causality -and certainly nothing reliably predictable between the thought and the consequence but consequences there surely are.

Or might that be just another analogy?

Edit:I see I did mangle that Delphic prophesy story.

Croesus of Lydia it was (more famous than Darius,too now)

Edited July 31Jul 31 by geordief

20 hours ago, geordief said:

Would the relationship between the physical world and the world of ideas bear any relation to the debuncted notion of "action at a distance" that "explained" Newtonian Gravity ? (Is Localism the theory that took its place-and which Bell has again ,apparently upended with his infernal statistical analysis?)

There seems (to me) to be no obvious chain of causality -and certainly nothing reliably predictable between the thought and the consequence but consequences there surely are.

Or might that be just another analogy?

Edit:I see I did mangle that Delphic prophesy story.

Croesus of Lydia it was (more famous than Darius,too now)

Whilst I was asleep during some ancient history, I was wide awake in English.

Unlike many languages English distinguishes between 'Abstract' and 'Concrete' nouns, again underling its suitability as a language for Science.

Abstract nouns includes your 'world of ideas'.

Both types are regarded as 'real' . You need to add qualifying words of phrases to make finer distinctions, another capability English excels in.

One such might be material v immaterial. Shadows are still very real, but immaterial. A concrete block is obviously real and material.

One test I like is "Can the object affect the real world ?" as separate from abstract v concrete or material v immaterial or true v false.

As regards your scientific question it is necessary to distinguish between action at a distance and instantaneous action at a distance.

Noting first that 'action' has its standard English definition, not the specialist definition used in Mechanics, I would observe that the problem hasn't gone away.

They were aware of it in Newton's time, but they pushed it into the long grass as intractable.

In truth, all we have done with better experiments and measurements is to reduce the scale over which it might be observed, very dramatically.

We too have brushed it under the carpet.

On 7/31/2026 at 6:15 PM, studiot said:

The difference between Harry Potter and the Delphi Oracle is that users (not necessarily the prophesiers) believed the prophesies to be' true'.

I can't think anyone believes Harry Potter to be 'true' except within the context of the books.

Think again. There is a lot of truth in the Harry Potter story; it is not the story line about witchcraft that is true, it is the relationships between the people.

Have you ever walked out of a movie theater thinking that the movie was stupid? the plot idiotic? the acting terrible? that it was a waste of time and money? It would be because you did not believe the story. Considering that Harry Potter's story has sold across the world in books, movies, and paraphernalia, I would say that a lot of people believed it and related to it. The thing about belief is that it requires emotion. It does not require valid thought, just relatable emotion.

On 7/31/2026 at 6:15 PM, studiot said:

Prophesies may be lies, deliberate untruths, fiction is generally known and recognised to be 'made up'.
(I know that some call some fiction lies such as "The Man Who Never Was" in WWII a made up character the Allies knew to be untrue that deceived the Germans."

But yes lies, pretence and deceit can also affect the real world around us, as noted.

So I guess my question is why are you talking about Harry Potter? This thread is about the difference between truth and facts, not the difference between truth and lies. I suspect that you see lies as qualifiers for truth, whereas facts reflect reality and need no qualifiers. I suspect you don't know enough about the study of truth to make that judgement.

Gee

23 minutes ago, Gees said:

It does not require valid thought, just relatable emotion

Just on that point ,I had been ruminating recently a bit on the difference between a "thought" and an "idea".

It seemed to me that anything could be classed a "thought" and that an idea was a refined kind of "thought".

So ,if that holds an emotion could also be called a "thought" but not an "idea"

I agree that there can be truth layered into fiction.

Don't they say the best cover stories are based on a truth?

33 minutes ago, Gees said:

Think again. There is a lot of truth in the Harry Potter story; it is not the story line about witchcraft that is true, it is the relationships between the people.

Have you ever walked out of a movie theater thinking that the movie was stupid? the plot idiotic? the acting terrible? that it was a waste of time and money? It would be because you did not believe the story. Considering that Harry Potter's story has sold across the world in books, movies, and paraphernalia, I would say that a lot of people believed it and related to it. The thing about belief is that it requires emotion. It does not require valid thought, just relatable emotion.

So I guess my question is why are you talking about Harry Potter? This thread is about the difference between truth and facts, not the difference between truth and lies. I suspect that you see lies as qualifiers for truth, whereas facts reflect reality and need no qualifiers. I suspect you don't know enough about the study of truth to make that judgement.

Gee

First to answer your question.
Why am I talking about Harry Potter.
Because it is my answer and amplification to another member's post.
Yes this thread is about the difference between truth and fact.
And I have openly admitted that I do not know the difference nor has any responder provided any comprehensive and satisfactory answer.
There have been many responses, and I have tried to address all of them. But many have also introduced other concepts some of which need setting aside from the main topic and perhaps even merit a thread of their own.

What has emerged is that everyone seems to have their own version of this difference, but that everyone's personal difference excludes some or even all of another's version.
Surely this can't be a totally satisfactory state of affairs.

No I don't see 'lies' as a qualifier. I had tried to indicate that lies are one of several types of falsehood. Perhaps that was not clear enough.

As regards your theatre comment, I suggest that whilst the technical world has its 'models' the arts world has its equivalents, a 'plot' being the literary equivalent.
But in both cases the oft used expression "The map is not the territory" applies.
A model, or a plot or an graphics outline, or a musical schema etc all have the same characteristic that they only embody part of what they are portraying more or less faithfully.
Some models are more complete than others but;
None of these can ever be an exact replica in all respects.

In a way maybe a fact is a model of truth, but only part of it.

46 minutes ago, geordief said:

So ,if that holds an emotion could also be called a "thought" but not an "idea"

Don't forget reflexes, which are actions without thought.

Edited Monday at 12:07 PM5 days by studiot
spelling

35 minutes ago, studiot said:

Don't forget reflexes, which are actions without thought.

Interesting.

I wonder how @Gees emotion in the Harry Potter stories relates to real emotion in people's lives.

It is obviously a facsimile based on the author's own experiences and reinterpreted by the audience according to their own.

Is that real? Or just "realer" than if the author was just following a stale template and not applying their lived experiences or if the audience was only paying cursory attention (more interested in getting a snog from the date,perhaps)

Is it possible for a literary or communicator to transmit their lived experiences across the medium of their work or might that be an illusion?

I may be convinced in my own mind that I "get" the feeling of,say Piaf's "je ne regrette rien" but is that an illusion that only works with simple emotions that can be easily reassembled in the audience's mind or is there more to it than that ?(can we be so similar in our "wiring" that some emotions can be transported in their entirety without "loss of signal" between receptive individuals?)

27 minutes ago, geordief said:

Interesting.

I wonder how @Gees emotion in the Harry Potter stories relates to real emotion in people's lives.

It is obviously a facsimile based on the author's own experiences and reinterpreted by the audience according to their own.

Is that real? Or just "realer" than if the author was just following a stale template and not applying their lived experiences or if the audience was only paying cursory attention (more interested in getting a snog from the date,perhaps)

Is it possible for a literary or communicator to transmit their lived experiences across the medium of their work or might that be an illusion?

I may be convinced in my own mind that I "get" the feeling of,say Piaf's "je ne regrette rien" but is that an illusion that only works with simple emotions that can be easily reassembled in the audience's mind or is there more to it than that ?(can we be so similar in our "wiring" that some emotions can be transported in their entirety without "loss of signal" between receptive individuals?)

How's this ?

I would say that thought is a general term that relates to both voluntary and involuntary abstract processes in the brain, some useful some less so that may be constructed of several ideas.
In this sense perhaps the relationship between truth and an fact is similar in that a truth may be constricted of several facts.

For example

It is a fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom.
It is also a fact that hydrogen is the 'lightest' atom.

So it is true that hydrogen is both the smallest and lightest atom.

You will have to ask @Gees about the rest of your post.

40 minutes ago, studiot said:

t is a fact that hydrogen is the smallest atom.
It is also a fact that hydrogen is the 'lightest' atom.

So it is true that hydrogen is both the smallest and lightest atom.

I think that is true statistically .

Your description is couched in the form of a linguistic(correct term?) expression which can be interpreted in many (imperfect)ways.

Logic ,too is a tool imo and not absolute.

So I claim that any proposition can be taken as "true" if we accept the possibility that it may not be completely so.

It is also ,completely acceptable to accept it as bring "true" if we admit that the acceptance is not without an element of "faith"

We accept things on faith because it is useful and we don't tie ourselves up in knots debating whether or not it could possibly not be true.

The Normany landings were held off by the weather until a final weather forecast on the West Coast of Ireland.

It turned out to be true (enough) but perhaps fingers and other bodily parts were crossed as the order to proceed was given.

18 minutes ago, geordief said:

Your description is couched in the form of a linguistic(correct term?) expression which can be interpreted in many (imperfect)ways.

Logic ,too is a tool imo and not absolute.

In what sense is:

25/8 < π < 22/7

not both the absolute truth and factual?

10 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

In what sense is:

25/8 < π < 22/7

not both the absolute truth and factual?

I don't want to argue against that as my heart would not be in it.

But I would also hesitate to argue for anything being "absolutely true" and that would apply to your statement

(I can see a possible contradiction in my argument but don't think it matters .What do they say "let not the perfect be the enemy of the good", or words to that effect)

47 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

In what sense is:

25/8 < π < 22/7

not both the absolute truth and factual?

I don't know whether to say this as not a very good example or is a very good example

The question is example of what ?

It is true in some number systems but not in others, where pi may not even be defined.

So how can it be absolute truth ?

Edited Monday at 03:41 PM5 days by studiot