> jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com wrote:
> > I would say that something is not a fact if its validity can be questioned.
> > This would mean that most things in science are /not/ fact. I'd agree
> > with that - most of it's conjecture, hypothesis and modelling systems.
>
> I can question whether or not you're really the Drakir I was emailing
> yesterday. I can question whether my existance is real or merely `a
> brain in a jar'.
I suppose. Well, in that case, I move to strike the word "fact" from
all languages :)
> I can question whether gravity really /does/ pull down
> equally based on mass.
Careful. Science is /far/ from being fact.
> > Nope, it was beleived, but it wasn't true, so it wasn't a fact.
>
> To /them/ it was a fact.
That makes fact utterly subjective to the beliefs of one's time. I
don't think this is a good definition of the word. Mind you, having
said that, all things are subjective to ones era, aren't they? I
think the word "fact" would be impossible to define with an utterly
watertight definition, and still apply to *anything*.
> How about if the aliens revealed we're all brains
> in jars?
Gurgle....
Drakir