Two separate topics, should go in 2 separate posts, but I'm lazy... so sue me!
First, I see that now I am ranked as a "Plus/4 User"... maybe one day I will be a C128 user?
Second, (and more seriously), I have been searching through English references... like some college books, Wikipedia, and Wiktionary, but it seems there is no word in the English language for an "un-fact" (by the way, un-fact is not a "real" word... whatever "real" means!)
So the simplest, most relevant, definition of "fact" (for this discussion) is a statement that can be verified. For example, New England Patriots defeat the Seattle Seahawks by a score of 28 to 24 in Super Bowl XLIX. It is a "fact" because it is something that can be verified by consulting modern resources.
What I am interested in is a term (if one even exists in the English language) for an "un-fact"... something that *could* be verified in the past as "true" but which is no longer believed to be true... examples include:
Earth is flat
The sun, the moon, and the planets orbit the Earth
Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones
Those are just examples... with a little thought, you can probably think of other "un-facts"!
But no matter how much I search, I can't seem to find any documentation / definition / term of this "universal truth": people get stuff wrong all the time, but there is no term for it?
Please help me?!
Sorry, I know this is WAY off topic for a Commie forum... but I figure you guys (girls?) are smarter than the average idiot who denies that "un-facts" exist at all!!!
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2015 9:16:52 GMT by hydrophilic: Typos!!
Wow. 300 posts to Plus/4 user. I am a long way away... I consider booting into 64 mode a failure... except for Maverick! and Novaterm 9.x or 10.
Unfacts... Beliefs Myths Wrongheaded... Common knowledge. Former currently accepted (ideas, practices). ... Assumptions
Those facts you cite were not verified or even observed but were theories or maybe just assumptions until verified or not according to need. No one saw the sun going around the earth. No one saw the earth was flat. No one saw heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. As tools to verify come into existence and need changes, the present truth supplants the former. Sometimes. There are deep pockets of untruth residing next to changed truth... in persons and people... aargh A man's got to know his limitations.
Last Edit: Feb 23, 2015 14:08:07 GMT by donno128: Extensive nonsense removed
Let us not talk falsely now The hour is getting late
That is my point dunno128... back in the day, there were reliable authorities who would "certify" such "facts". Do a little historical research and you can find "proof" from "authorities" as to the "fact" that planets orbit the Earth (blame the Church!) or that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects (lots of blame to spread in that case).
Actually, that is HALF of my point. So... in the past, there were "facts" that could be verified by some "authority"... like the Vatican (or the King, or a society of alchemists).
The other half of my point is that people are stupid... our intelligence / knowledge is always evolving.... so what was "fact" in the past is (maybe) "wrong/false" by today's "authority".
My total point is that, as far as I can tell, there is no word in the English language for an "un-fact"... something that is proclaimed to be a "fact" (in modern terms) but which is (or might be) actually false... an "un-fact".
Thanks donno128 for your comment, and everyone else, PLEASE comment on your thoughts of an "un-fact"...
*** Epiphany *** Although this subject has been troubling for many months, after posting this topic and getting a good night's sleep, I think that I *might* know the answer...
Is that the right word? Something that is believed to be true but is not?
Modern topics might include:
The Big Bang Theory (inflation seems like a load of crap to me... it makes the equations magically work out "just right")
The speed-of-light (in a vacuum) is constant
Radioactive decay is constant (if not, this fù¢ks up all radioactive dating!)
Thanks Robert B! As you are known as an educator in the English language, it is very re-assuring to hear you confirm that my "over-night" guess of FALLACY is an adequate term.
Now I think I will sleep peacefully at night... thank you!
Side topic -- I've only read about Wheels (never used cuz don't own SuperCPU), but if you say it runs without SuperCPU, then I guess I need to check it out!!! (um... thanks again?)
Upon review of my original post, I am not sure if "fallacy" is the 100% correct term.
Although "fallacy" (according to Wiktionary definition 2) is "An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not", I don't think it is 100% perfect... because I am (mainly) talking about arguments that *were* conclusive (i.e., a "fact") in the past, but which are widely regarded as false today. I am also referring to arguments that are *now* proclaimed (by various "authorities") to be true, but which will/might be considered false in the future.
Can you say "gray area"? Good... I knew you could!
All things considered, it seems "fallacy" is the best term, but it also seems we need a new English term... like "protofact" or "histofact" ? Or my colorful "bullfact"?
Sorry, I know this is way too meta-linguistic for a C128 forum... but I gotta be honest!
Last Edit: Feb 27, 2015 7:48:21 GMT by hydrophilic: Thought of something else...