[betty boop]

RW: That we are talking about them makes them [sic] objective. Some confuse fact with true, which is a confusion of categorical judgement.

k50: Like the sentence you just wrote?

Hi kosta50! I think RightWhale has a good point, but perhaps you didn't understand it in the fashion he intended.

If people are talking about something, face to face or in a larger group, what they are talking about does become "objective," in the sense that it can be shared. However, something that is "objective" in this sense may or may not be "true." But that the talking has taken place is an empirical, i.e., objective "fact" nonetheless. He suggests that people become confused when "facts" are taken to be "truths." For facts can lie....

Did I understand you correctly, RW?

[RightWhale]

Did I understand you correctly, RW?

Not quite. There are many kinds of fact, at least seven. Scientific fact is one of these and that is a technical use for a technical term. Fact is not a synomym for true. Scientific facts are objective.

[kosta50]

Thanks betty boop. I understood what he said. Just because a bunch of people talk about something as an “object” of their conversation doesn’t mean there is such an object. So, it is just words unattached to anything real. In other words, shooting the breeze in common language.