By the very definition of the word, fact cannot be subjective. Fire is hot - that is a fact, regardless of if someone personally believes otherwise.Nope, but I've encountered people both irl and online (even on this forum) that will argue that truth is a subjective matter. If truth is subjective, facts are subjective, and if facts are subjective, everyone's entitled to their own set of facts.
Compared to the intensity of a something like a quasar, a standard wood fire is relatively cool. Even by terrestrial standards, a wood fire is insufficient for the smelting of steel. The blast furnace uses the heated carbon monoxide from the forge to strip oxygen and other compounds from the incoming coal and further reduce it to a pure carbon fuel source, which burns far hotter.By the very definition of the word, fact cannot be subjective. Fire is hot - that is a fact, regardless of if someone personally believes otherwise.
Exactly. I was laying out their line of reasoning, not mine persay. We're on the same page.By the very definition of the word, fact cannot be subjective. Fire is hot - that is a fact, regardless of if someone personally believes otherwise.
I think you're over-complicating the point lolCompared to the intensity of a something like a quasar, a standard wood fire is relatively cool. Even by terrestrial standards, a wood fire is insufficient for the smelting of steel. The blast furnace uses the heated carbon monoxide from the forge to strip oxygen and other compounds from the incoming coal and further reduce it to a pure carbon fuel source, which burns far hotter.
A fact would be: "That fire has an emission spectra of [chart] with the following intensities [graph]." Those facts could then be used to determine what the equilibrium temperature for the surface area of your hand was at a given distance from the fire, and therefor at what range you could hold your hand before it would begin to 'burn.' Of course, since blood is circulating through your hand and the body can use the rest of the skin to radiate heat and throw that equilibrium calculation off, a bit, the data should only be considered an approximation, rather than an absolute.
Perhaps it was a bad example; It was just the first thing that popped into my head.Exactly. I was laying out their line of reasoning, not mine persay. We're on the same page.
You chose a bad example in claiming fire is hot is a fact, though. Aim64C laid out why in great detail.
I understood what you meant. It's all good.I think you're over-complicating the point lol
Perhaps it was a bad example; It was just the first thing that popped into my head.
Even if we all see the same thing, what they actually are can still be challenged. The only difference from the heliocentric model is that you're confident these examples are facts because they're easier to observe with the eyes. If we were to distinguish what are hard facts and theories just by what our eyes see, things like the concept of gas & electricity would be on the debate table simply because there's more to interpret differently. You got shocked, but, instead of saying the cause is electricity, you make up a new word & concept then attribute that shock to it.If there is someone challenging the heliocentric model of the earth, that already says it isn't fact the earth is ball-shaped. Facts are fire is gas, water is liquid, the earth is solid, etc. You cannot challenge them because they are observable and aren't built on theories following theories, like our scholarly model of the earth.
I get your point of view. What you've said though cements further that facts can be subjective, and therefore are a malleable truth. My example was flawed, but I don't don't think I was wrong in my line of thought. One of the elements contributing to a fact is they are observable. The elements go on, such as provable, comprehensible, etc. But I'm no linguist neither are you, I believe, so we can't say much if we cannot begin to define what a fact is.Yea. People are allowed to have different facts since facts only qualify as facts if they're interpreted as facts. Saying they aren't would be to say they can't interpret ideas differently than me.
Even if we all see the same thing, what they actually are can still be challenged. The only difference from the heliocentric model is that you're confident these examples are facts because they're easier to observe with the eyes. If we were to distinguish what are hard facts and theories just by what our eyes see, things like the concept of gas & electricity would be on the debate table simply because there's more to interpret differently. You got shocked, but, instead of saying the cause is electricity, you make up a new word & concept then attribute that shock to it.
A child cannot count add properly, so he challenges the idea that 1 + 1 = 2.