| That these facts inhere in the physical world (and I don't disagree) does not directly correspond to the beliefs of the individuals living in said world. Language exists and is the vehicle used to transmit beliefs about facts. This is why we speak of proof in the first place. The fact that person A died at another's hands does not directly correspond to the belief held by an individual that person X was the killer. This is why we have "beyond reasonable doubt" as a legal evidentiary standard. I agree that factual axiomatic truths exist in the physical world and are evident to individuals as factual axiomatic truth. The problem is communicating these as such without granting license to counterfeits. The most successful form thus far has been to let the facts speak for themselves to individuals as factual axiomatic truths. The least successful has been to establish unassailable dogma concerning what is and is not factual. The certainty that you and others present concerning your set of beliefs-as-facts-themselves is of the same species as other true believers throughout history. Historically, this has led to the suppression of the scientific method and an open society in favor of a prelatical and clerical class that determines by edict what truth is, often solely at the behest of the hegemonic power and not factual axiomatic truth. This is why it is preferable to have minimal rather than maximal control over the exchange of ideas concerning the nature of what constitutes a fact, let alone what those facts actually are. |