▲ | postmodern100 5 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Sorry I already forgot the password to my recently created account!) > There's a misconception in this thread and commonly elsewhere. Scientists aren't after truth. They're after facts. Truth depends on context. Facts are indisputable. Imagine you're looking at your computer screen and you see green. Someone else looking at their computer screen might be red/green color blind and might see a shade of brown. The color being green and red can simultaneously be true. But the fact might be that the displayed color is a mix of certain EM frequencies, and each person's brain interprets those frequencies differently. This to me reads as semantic games; let me rephrase your example: "Imagine you're looking at your computer screen and you see green. Someone else looking at their computer screen might be red/green color blind and might see a shade of brown. The color being green and red can simultaneously be factual. But the truth is that the displayed color is a mix of certain EM frequencies, and each person's brain interprets those frequencies differently." | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | inetknght 5 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> can simultaneously be factual. But the truth is that the displayed color Your rephrase is incorrect. "Red" and "green" depends on what your brain interprets. That doesn't change the underlying EM frequencies of the color you see. Therefore, red and green are truth while EM frequencies are factual. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|