I don't know whether you do or do not understand just why I am so scornful of intellectual disintegrity and why I do not shy from pointing it out (nor from mocking it) when it is blatant. But, if you understand the content of the article, then you surely ought to understand.
A problem with the term 'fact' -- and Willard does it in this piece -- is that we use the term to mean two very different things: 1) we call the thing about which we wish to think/speak a 'fact' 2) we call the statement(s) we make about the thing 'fact(s)'
The first might better be called "brute facts." The second "factual statements."
I don't know whether you do or do not understand just why I am so scornful of intellectual disintegrity and why I do not shy from pointing it out (nor from mocking it) when it is blatant. But, if you understand the content of the article, then you surely ought to understand.
ReplyDeleteA problem with the term 'fact' -- and Willard does it in this piece -- is that we use the term to mean two very different things:
ReplyDelete1) we call the thing about which we wish to think/speak a 'fact'
2) we call the statement(s) we make about the thing 'fact(s)'
The first might better be called "brute facts." The second "factual statements."