chyron8472 said:
ZigZig said:
I think everybody agrees that truth and facts are not the same thing.
But IMHO, talking about “evidences” refers to facts, not to truth. So if there is confusion, it comes mainly from all this discussion about “evidences”. Which was not initiated by Possessed or me…
It’s still an argument of semantics. There can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact. To say something is not evidence because it is not fact speaks more to the credibility one has for said evidence, not whether it is actually evidence.
I disagree. In this meaning of facts (“à la” Indiana Jones), facts are obviously linked to sciences, so based on reproducible evidences. In opposition to truth, which is linked to Philosophy. That is the whole point of Indy: if you don’t need evidences, go to Dr. Tyree’s philosophy class. At least, it is how I understand this scene. But I respect that you understand it in another way.
BTW, about this argument of semantics thing: when you say that truth and facts are not the same thing, or when you say that some evidences are reproducible and some are not, or when you say that testimony is an evidence in a legal meaning, or when you say that there can be evidence of truth that is also itself not fact, it is ALSO an argument of semantics.
Actually, this whole thread is an argument of semantics. Which is fine: at the end of the day, we are all talking about how we understand a book…