Since 70 percent of all goods are sold indirect through channels, that means 70 percent of IT goods and services are sold through the channel.
You could take that contextual stretch even further by saying that it means 70 percent of all PCs and servers are sold through the channel. Or you could say that 70 percent of all blockchain implementations are sold through the channel. Only the first number is true — that 70 percent of all goods are sold indirect through channels — as, again, that 70 percent includes everything sold through channels. The volume of IT goods sold indirectly is somewhere around 60 percent.
The volume of PCs and servers sold through the channel is somewhere around 50 percent. And the volume of blockchain implementations sold through the channel is in the single digits. There are two types of Truth, one absolute and the other manufactured to suit humans.
In history, there have always been truths with a small t that come about as an unavoidable aspect of progress. They have scarred and marred the progression of science, as in the dangers of nuclear war or the environment-destroying properties of DDT, originally used to rid the world of disease-carrying mosquitoes.
At its best, science is self-correcting and in time truths evolve into Truths. There are huge gains to be made by fabricating truths. Consensus-based truths have repeatedly helped society. For example, the stack of technical standards that run the plumbing of the Internet are consensus-driven constructs. Languages, which form the very foundation of human society, are human constructs.
The extant languages, and many dead ones, attest to the fact that there is no Truth when it comes to language. Just practical human agreements about ways to communicate. A dog is a dog whether you call it a dog in English, chien in French, or kutta in Hindi. So, when do truths with a small t go so wrong? When they serve only a fraction of people.
When they are engineered to benefit self over society. When these truths are deeply asymmetrical in their consequences. When they cause intended harm. An entire society benefits from a shared language. Only a fraction of a population from untruths that prop up false claims of superiority, tout products that kill, or spread rumours that compromise the reputation of a president or a presidential candidate. Today, on top of the historical motivations for spreading untruths, we have a new motivation.
Cash on the internet. False content can bring purveyors of lies big ad money. A few individuals have realised this and cashed in. But there are these two terms, on the other hand- fact and the truth.
Both sound quite similar, yet they are completely different from each other. The difference between fact and truth is that fact is something that exists in real form, while Truth is the true state of a particular thing or a matter like a person, place, animal or thing. Well, facts are things that can be seen visually and can be verified properly. Like if you try to touch fire, you can get wounds, and it will, of course, feel hot.
The truth, on the other hand, can be said a real state of a matter, like nouns, in what a person comes to believe sometime later. Truth is not universal in Nature. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist.
If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts. Then I found this Reference. Article from above link says like below:.
Facts are notes and lyrics on sheet music. In our daily life, in general conversation, we generally use these both terms interchangeably.
Then what is the difference? Are they synonym or have specific difference? The quote about facts gets it pretty right. A fact is, for many philosophers, a part of reality Russel, for example. So as there are people and tables and chairs in our world, there is also the fact that I am sitting on the chair. It is as real as the chair itself. Truth is a property of sentences, propositions, utterances, whatever you like.
Facts can therefore not be true, in the same way as a chair cannot be true. Stating a fact, however, and depending on your opinion, has a truthvalue. I think the second quote about truth is a bit problematic.
It sounds as if good arguments alter reality. But arguments cannot be true, they can be valid, and they can be truthconserving. So if I have an argument for the existence of god, it is at best valid. That does not mean, however, that suddenly, in virtue of the good argument, god came into existence.
So on one common view those things that can be true are propositions. So a meaningful exression would be: The proposition that snow is white is true.
If you believe that sentences are the things that can be true, then this would be an example: The sentence "Grass is green" is true. Most people believe that facts cannot be true: They think that " The fact that grass is green is true" is a weird thing to say.
I use brackets to make clear that the predicate "is true" refers to the fact. Because otherwise there could be a second reading about the fact that grass is green is true , if there is such a fact.
To conclude: i There is the fact that grass is green, and ii the proposition that grass is green is true. Also it is worth pointing out that there are philosophers who say that there are no facts, because facts are weird ontological things and maybe you can do without them. So this is just one way to answer this question. Firstly, you appear to be asking for how the words truth and fact are used, but you capitalize these words.
That already tends to obfuscate the issue, suggesting there is some very special, possibly metaphysical, usage you are alluding to. Secondly, in asking for the meaning of individual words, you are suggesting that the unit of meaning is a single word. This is not true, as any cursory look in a dictionary will demonstrate. There are multiple entries for both truth and fact, not in the the least because the meaning of the words is modified by their context, and that therefore truth and fact can have multiple meanings in different contexts.
Now, it happens to be the case that one such dictionary entry for truth is "conforming to the facts" and for fact "a particular truth known". This is from the Oxford Dictionary, but I assume any dictionary would have similar definitions. This only goes to show that in one important sense truth and fact are interchangeable.
At least, I expected it to work the other way around. The convention in this thread has facts being possibly wrong; we are much more used to axioms being possibly wrong, for we only call something a 'theorem' if it has been logically demonstrated to flow from the axioms. Then again, if we are trying to approximate the world with a formal system, we are essentially searching for axioms that generate theorems which match the facts.
In pictogram format:. Excepting tautologies, truths are unknowable except by approximation; we must remember that science models reality, but it does not say what reality is. To the extent that our theorems match our observations 'the facts' , we think that our axioms are [close to] truths. The word 'reality' in this answer can be replaced with 'possible world'; what is true in a fictional world may not be true in our actual world.
Assuming there is an objective reality, of course. First, truth and fact are two words made by men, so we have to examine what men mean when they use the word truth, and when they use the word fact. A news reporter is always reminded to include answers in reporting a news item, to the following interrogative terms, what I call the five w's and one h, namely: who, what, where, when, why, and how.
So, let us start with what is a fact? It is a word indicating an event i. A lie is a communication from a man that is contrary to what knows in his mind [some folks will find my words here familiar to themselves in their school days]. Examples of lies: a jeweler tells his customer that the ring he is selling is a diamond ring, but he knows the ring is a fake diamond ring, the diamond in the ring is just a piece of plain glass, next - an applicant to a job tells his prospective employer that he finished a college degree of mechanical engineering, but he knows he has no such college degree, a husband telling his wife he was held up by traffic on his way home, but he was not held up by traffic, instead he dropped in at the new bar in town.
If you ask me, I will tell you that truth depends on man's experiences of facts - however, he could be mistaken with his experiences of facts; this still does not mean that there is no certainty at all - it just means that every human must check carefully for ascertaining that the facts are really facts, and not mistaken facts.
In a sense, say from deflationary theory or pragmatism for instance, facts and truths are labels, ways of talking. Both are lingual. The only difference that makes a difference is that facts are apparent and obvious while all propositions that are truth-bearing require warrant, justification.
For example, it is a fact that the sky is blue when it is blue and that roses that are red are red If we look at how we're using our vocabularies, then we can ultimately notice as some have in philosophy, that whatever else we'd say about facts and truths are just particular distinctions a group of people have found useful to make in their sort of conversations about them.
Many things exist in truth according to an observer , and not fact. Truths need an observer to exist. Facts stand independent of an observer, wether we like it or not. A fact is not voted upon by a majority. A fact is not a belief or percieved by individuals. Your perception and your subjective beliefs can be wrong but a fact can never be wrong by definition. If you think a fact can be wrong, then someone or you made a wrong claim, period.
0コメント