I think there were a few times where you've asked how facts can
be defined, or something like that. And that kinda stumped me and
luck has it, I stumbled upon this gem. This following excerpt is
from the book Stumbling on
Happiness by Daniel Gilbert.
...Although the word fact seems to suggest a sort of
unquestionable irrefutability, facts are actually nothing more than
conjectures that have met a high standard of proof. If we set the
standard high enough, then nothing can ever be proved, including
the "fact" of our own existence. If we set the standard low enough,
then all things are true and equally so. Because nihilism and
postmodernism are both such unsatisfying philosophies, we tend to
set our standard of proof somewhere in the middle. No one can say
precisely where that standard should be set, but one thing we do
know is that wherever we set it, we must keep it in the same place
when we evaluate the facts we favor and the facts we don't. It
would be unfair for teachers to give the students they like easier
exams than those they dislike, ...
Does it shed any light on the definition of facts, or
anything?
