>>>>>>>>>>>>Facts != Truth
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Hmm. So something can be a fact but not true?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A set of facts, each individually true, may not sum up to the "truth".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Can you give an example ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fact: Israel has been bombing the Gaza
>>>>>>>>Fact: Those bombs have killed children
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's the truth: Israel is a country of monsters who bomb the Gaza in order to kill children?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Unless you have all the facts (and whoever does?), the facts you have don't necessarily add up to 'truth'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I fail to understand your argument (unless,of course, you are claiming that the third statement is the 'truth')
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The third statement is a 'truth' that might be gleaned from the facts presented. It illustrates the statement that you led you to want an example. If that's not what you want, then I don't understand what issue you're having with his statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>By definition a 'truth' must be true.
>>>>>The third statement can be no more than, at best, a supposition based on the two preceding facts.
>>>>>Stating that 'Facts != Truth' is the same as 'Truth != Facts' which is not possible - either it is not the truth or the facts are not facts.
>>>>
>>>>I take it then that you either missed or ignored the quotation marks he place around the word 'truth'.
>>>
>>>Wasn't that in your message? What was the purpose - were they meant to imply it was not a truth? If so then I understand the argument even less :-{
>>
>>Nope. In his original message. Look up top about line 5. Implies that 'truth' may be relative to the facts. At least, that's the way I took it, and since I'm right, and you're wrong.... ;)
>
>OK. You're right. Or at least I suppose you are :-}
>I think most of this discussion stems from a loose interpretation of the meaning of the word 'truth'
>Best,
>Viv

Paraphrasing Louis Armstrong, Truth is what I say. ;)