What is in fact a fact? Would it be what seems to be, what can be observed to be, or what is? And in any case can we offer any kind of convincing proof. We might have to go back and study the arguments of Parmenides and Heraclites or maybe we can just dive in... that's me.
Part I: What 'seems to be' is observable and verifiable by some sort of triangulation that adequately explains it. We can track history and determine step by step how something that seems to be, has come to be, and make an accurate prediction on what it is to be. We can study the culture of something and determine what the necessary requirements for it to be and then look again and determine the requirements are met and there it is as it should be. We can test it, study it, get confirmation from outside sources, and notice our explanation seems right and determine therefore that it is. Things can seem to be exactly as we understand them to be, and we could stop there with a certain degree of comfort, with no expectation beyond that. It seems right may be the most confidence we can muster.
The nag here is that we are not never satisfied with the idea of things seeming to be, we continually strive to know more about things. Are they all they seem to be, or less, or is there more to it?
On the other hand we can get caught in the trap of defending something beyond reason simply because it seems right and we don't have a better explanation.
Next |
