SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (52419)10/16/2002 3:56:10 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Edit:
I take this statement to mean: We agree on the facts, but have different interpretations of those facts....

Aren't "facts" facts?

Surely you see that our disagreements are not factual but rather interpretive


Karen,

The thread had a rather long and, at least to me, informative discussion of facts and interpretations early on. If you were interested you could check back. Well, then, the more I put a little piece of my mind to it, I realize checking back is not a viable option. No good keywords, search function not all that robust, etc.

Tek started a discussion about this in which he offered the basic distinction of facts and interpretations. We might, for instance, all agree on the number of poor families in the US but we might disagree vigorously over the meaning of that and, thus, the political implications of that observation.

We, basically, left the conversation at that level.

There is, however, another discussion, definitely not relevant to this thread, as to just what "facts" are. That discussion has, on the one end, something like the Rashomon effect, the Japanese movie, in which there are several witnesses to a "rape" but none recount the same event such that it throws into question just what a "fact" is, and on the other end, positions that argue that these little critters termed "facts" are substantial, verifiable, nuggets of truth.