[WikiEN-l] Zxcvb is Lir

[The Cunctator]

On 5/12/03 1:13 AM, "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2003-05-11 at 18:15, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
>> Adam probably thinks that an encyclopedia should have
>> facts laid out as such, not just vague guesses. It's
>> understandable (although I don't agree with it) to
>> present speculation as fact to mask uncertainty.
>> Certainly other websites do it.
> 
> That is the exact opposite of acceptable. An encyclopedia must not
> present speculation as fact, as that would be a falsehood.
> 
> It may present the fact that there _is_ speculation. That's not the same
> thing.
> 
A philosophical digression:

All facts are based on speculation at some point. "My eyes are blue" would
generally go under the category of fact, not speculation, but that statement
is actually a speculation, to wit: "The vast majority of the time I have
observed the color of my eyes via reflective or photographic media, and the
vast majority of time that others expressed a judgment about the color of my
eyes, they have appeared to be blue; and as I assume that my  memories and
senses, the photographic and reflective media, and the judgments of others
are reliable, and as I know of no situations in which people's eyes
spontaneously change color, nor can I conceive of a mechanism by which my
eyes would do so, I speculate that at this moment (and for the foreseeable
future) my eyes are blue."

But it's easier to say "My eyes are blue", call it a fact, and move on.

It's debatable whether a verifiable speculation that turns out to be true is
in any way distinct from a fact. Is "The sun will rise tomorrow" a
falsehood? Is it not a fact? Does it become one retroactively when tomorrow
comes?