On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:37 AM, tijlan
<jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28 July 2011 03:18, .arpis. <
rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:
> I, personally, am a fan {au sai} of {facydatci}
>
> Data that's false isn't data, per se.
etc. are possible.
I'm tempted to continue differentiating "working data" (i.e. something that someone thinks to be data and thus true) and "data" (which must be either {lo jetnu} or {lo fatci}, I'm not sure which), but I am beginning to see how this can become problematic.
Consider also this case:
A 'color-blind' person goi koha and a non-'color-blind' person goi
kohe are looking at an apple and an orange. Kohe says the two fruits
have different colors. Koha says they have the same color. Both koha
and kohe are truthfully reporting the sense data they each perceive of
the fruits. Koha's and kohe's datni represent relative facts. But
fatci1 is defined to be 'in the absolute'. Whose sense data should be
exclusively referred to as {facydatni}? In other words, whose datni
would you consider as being *not* of reality?
If "color" is an abstract notion based on perception (your blue vs. my blue), then {ge nai lo datni pe ko'a gi nai lo datni pe ko'e fatci} (could I have said {lo datni pe ge nai ko'a gi nai ko'e fatci}?) since neither is true in the absolute sense.
If "color" is defined in terms of the wavelengths/frequencies of the photons bouncing off of the fruits, then kohe's statement is certainly not fatci and koha's statment is probably fatci, but koha can't know that just based on koha's observation.