(06-24-2018, 06:37 PM)TheNomad Wrote: If we cannot conduct our politics based on facts, what sort of republic will we have?
I only want to know who determines fact? It is based on your subjective consciousness, and that is not fact at all. Pointing to "fact" only when it mimics your own subjective beliefs. Not even Factcheckers can be that succinct; sooner or later they will contradict you and no longer be "factual". If a Factchecker is not factual, what is her data then?
Also, when one chooses to exclude data for Factual Consideration, that means you have edited. Edited Fact is only subjective hyperbole. It is not factual. You are not allowed to comment on certain things when you have edited the data pool for your own subjective interpretation. You don't get that respect. All facts must be discovered in a non-subjective (by definition, objective and unprejudiced) manner. That is why judges recuse themselves from cases where personal opinion (subjectivity) might become inherent in the ruling. That is why all courts are processed to be as impartial as possible to avoid SUBJECTIVITY.
Who checks your facts? From where do your Facts originate? When "Fact" is different from your personal subjective belief system, does it cease being Fact? Can you name an example?
DO YOUR FACTUAL SYSTEMS UPDATE WITH PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN FACTS OR ARE THEY UNWAVERING TRUTHS OF ALL TIME?
We all have values. If one concludes that slavery might lead to greater prosperity but that it is abominable -- then it is a moral and not a factual judgment that we must not introduce or impose slavery.
Another question is "whose facts"? David Irving would tell us that the Holocaust is a hoax no matter what anyone else says of it. My rejection of Young Earth Creationism has its basis in evidence, but some consider it necessary for protecting moral law. (If we see Man as a descendant of apes and monkeys instead of recognizing ourselves as a special creation, then we deny our humanity). I am going on the high statistical likelihood that evolution is right and that young-earth creationism is false. We will never find the last nine in the decimal because there is no last nine.
Morals and esthetics are subjective. I cannot prove that murder is wrong, but I can certainly say that a place in which human life is easy to put an end to for some specious reason is too dangerous for my taste. I cannot establish that Casablanca is a great piece of movie-making and that Howard the Duck is awful. The consensus of experts on movie judgment is an objective fact, and one denies such at great harm to one's reputation.
Some facts always emerge. People win awards; get arrested, indicted, cleared or convicted of crimes and are sentenced and released; people die. People win and lose court decisions and marry and divorce. Elections are held and results are reported. Statistics such as census data get reported. Sporting events happen, and the Cleveland Indians beat the Detroit Tigers 12-2 today. I may despise Donald Trump but I recognize that he is President in accordance with the laws of the USA. Official results are normally definitive unless we see an obvious mistake (I once saw a death report for a man who died of ovarian cancer, which is obviously impossible) or a pattern of deceit (as people dying in Nazi murder camps of 'heart failure' when they were murdered in a gas chamber).
So if William Shakespeare has a character tell us that "All the world's a stage" as a metaphoric truth, its identity as a literary reality is solid even if the world is not a literal stage.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.