i was thinking that there is no such thing as a fact. if you think about it, it's true.

take "fact" exhibit 2-

bananas are yellow.

now, how do you know that? because someone told you, right?

but if i decided that bananas were hughtes, whose to say they are not? whose to say that hughtes isn't a word?

everything that is "fact" is something that's been told to us: it may have been told by a reliable source such as a dictionary or the news, but i still don't constitute that as fact.

for example, anything is disputable if you really want to get down to it. say i decide that the word fact is not a word and the reality of something being actual is called "phutter". the dictionary might argue with me and so may you, but i'm still entitled to an opinion. and since words are just letters put together and assigned to objects or acts years ago than whose to say they are still acurate? when they first created the pen they used a feather and some ink. now you can get a pen with the ink already in it- improvement. so now when we look at a feather, we see a feather, not a pen. yet, a feather used to be a writing utensil. feather as a writing utensil= fact (in 1600 or whatever). feather as a writing utensil now= novelty, not factual.

am i making sense? i am hungry for someone to debate this and think i'm wrong. bring it on if you will. my point is only that facts are supposed to be different than opinions in that they are not disputable. what i think is that facts are actually just the opinions we could all agree upon.

2004-02-04, 9:51 p.m.
design by bluechicken

previous����next