The Four Friends

[Revoltingest]

They each (except the 2nd one) expressed their opinion of the facts as they saw them.

As for the 2nd on, he stated his opinion but the facts are the Eiffel tower has consistently made a profit, currently a yearly net of about €78 million. I doubt a poor design of the weight vs height of the tower would have stood the test of time.

Sometimes poor design survives the ages.

 

[Willamena]

The statement that it is a gigantic structure made of wrought iron and was lit up by lights is a statement of fact (mostly--gigantic is a matter of opinion).

The rest are opinions.

What about that the tower is iconic? That it has stood the test of time? That it's of poor architectural design?

 

[Willamena]

Facts are intersubjectively verifiable, so what they saw was not entirely factual.

I like that phrase, "not entirely factual." Or opinion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Even if I trust the observer, "marvel" is still an aesthetic judgement, ie, an opinion.
It differs from a claim like "wrought iron", which is very precisely & quantitatively
defined, eg, the percentage of carbon in the iron matrix.

If you would impose quantitative measure then tell me where I can find a standard quantity that registers as a marvel or not. No, but a marvel is a marvel depending upon its effects both physical and mental which are testable. If you feel marvel then it is a marvelous thing by definition.

 

[ChristineM]

Sometimes poor design survives the ages.

It is not a poor design, if it were it would be a heap of rubble.

I have the quintessential pic of me holding it up with one finger. A guess all tourists to Pisa have one.

 

[Willamena]

They didn't actually see some of the things they described,
eg, "marvel" is an aesthetic judgement.
Typical kitten reasoning....you'll see the light when you become a cat.

"See" can be used metaphorically. To my reasoning, facts conforms with truth. The aesthetic judgement, if it's what he really "saw," can be a relative fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is not a poor design, if it were it would be a heap of rubble.

I'm glad you bought that up.
I was going to address it, but you know.....blah blah blather.
I must set limits in my posts.

The bad design is in the foundation, but because it's so
prized, people are willing to spend a fortune on measures
to fix or at least slow/stop the leaning. Good design would
wouldn't require such efforts. There are towers which are
not tipping over.

 

[Polymath257]

What about that the tower is iconic? That it has stood the test of time? That it's of poor architectural design?

Nope. Those are all matters of opinion, although to various degrees. For example, it has lasted over a century. Does that mean it has passed some 'test' of time'? Similarly, that it is used as an icon can be a matter of fact, but that it is iconic is a matter of opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

"See" can be used metaphorically. To my reasoning, facts conforms with truth. The aesthetic judgement, if it's what he really "saw," can be a relative fact.

Well, we could take the view that all 4 friends are completely factual
about what they experienced. Are there then any things which are
opinion? That view doesn't seem useful in a world where separating
fact from opinion has value.

 

[Audie]

Four friends go to visit the Eiffel Tower in France for the first time. After taking the tour and exploring the structure, they compare notes.

The first one says of the tower, "I saw a gigantic structure made of wrought-iron, a marvel of engineering, lit up last night with thousands of lights. Quite the spectacle!"

The second one says, "I saw a colossal waste of money and time, poor architectural design, and the view from the top was a disappointment."

The third one says, "I saw a human endeavour that has stood the test of time. It stands along with the Statue of Liberty and the Pyramids of Egypt as symbols of great civilizations. It left me hopeful about the future of mankind."

Then the fourth one says, "I saw the bold spirit of a nation of artists, engineers, and architects. They may have had their differences about its construction, but the end result is iconic of France itself."

Do they express opinion or fact?

You sure it was four?

 

[Willamena]

Nope. Those are all matters of opinion, although to various degrees. For example, it has lasted over a century. Does that mean it has passed some 'test' of time'? Similarly, that it is used as an icon can be a matter of fact, but that it is iconic is a matter of opinion.

"Test of time" is a figure of speech. Does using a nonliteral term make it any less true? That it is iconic is surely relative to a group, period, or culture, but does it being relative make it any less true for that case?

 

[Willamena]

Well, we could take the view that all 4 friends are completely factual
about what they experienced. Are there then any things which are
opinion? That view doesn't seem useful in a world where separating
fact from opinion has value.

Opinion, to me, is essentially implicitly about the subject rather than the object one is being explicit about. The person who sees hope about the future of mankind is expressing how they feel. The person who sees a waste of time and money isn't talking about himself, even implicitly.

 

[sealchan]

Four friends go to visit the Eiffel Tower in France for the first time. After taking the tour and exploring the structure, they compare notes.

The first one says of the tower, "I saw a gigantic structure made of wrought-iron, a marvel of engineering, lit up last night with thousands of lights. Quite the spectacle!"

The second one says, "I saw a colossal waste of money and time, poor architectural design, and the view from the top was a disappointment."

The third one says, "I saw a human endeavour that has stood the test of time. It stands along with the Statue of Liberty and the Pyramids of Egypt as symbols of great civilizations. It left me hopeful about the future of mankind."

Then the fourth one says, "I saw the bold spirit of a nation of artists, engineers, and architects. They may have had their differences about its construction, but the end result is iconic of France itself."

Do they express opinion or fact?

We have four cognitive functions for assessing "truth": thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. Those truths are, furthermore, influenced by subjective considerations including the breadth of personal objective knowledge and experience.

All truths require a context, a way of knowing. Some people feel more comfortable with sensory data (thousands of lights). Others find deeper truth in intuition (iconic). Some find that values are important (waste, poor, disappointment, hopeful). Others like logic (stood...time > hopeful).

There is no perfect subjectivity or objectivity so we cannot define truth outside of our chosen "way of knowing" bias. We cannot show one way ultimately superior to another, only provisionally so in a limited context.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Four friends go to visit the Eiffel Tower in France for the first time. After taking the tour and exploring the structure, they compare notes.

The first one says of the tower, "I saw a gigantic structure made of wrought-iron, a marvel of engineering, lit up last night with thousands of lights. Quite the spectacle!"

The second one says, "I saw a colossal waste of money and time, poor architectural design, and the view from the top was a disappointment."

The third one says, "I saw a human endeavour that has stood the test of time. It stands along with the Statue of Liberty and the Pyramids of Egypt as symbols of great civilizations. It left me hopeful about the future of mankind."

Then the fourth one says, "I saw the bold spirit of a nation of artists, engineers, and architects. They may have had their differences about its construction, but the end result is iconic of France itself."

Do they express opinion or fact?

all their statements were fact-driven, yet unencumbered by the constraints of reality...

 

[sealchan]

"Test of time" is a figure of speech. Does using a nonliteral term make it any less true? That it is iconic is surely relative to a group, period, or culture, but does it being relative make it any less true for that case?

it is being well demonstrated in recent cognitive science that human concepts are all largely based on metaphors and that those metaphors are rooted in bodily experience. Even the sounds and movements of the mouth in forming words relate to the experience of the world that the words so uttered represent.

Time as test - the idea that the longer something persists in our world even against all the known reasons why something fails to persist has some internal characteristic which makes it more robust against those reasons which are like an examination or qualification of the integrity of that thing; this metaphor reflects a newer experience of us that we can use instruments to measure and quantify something and/or administer a set of ritualistic actions or questions to judge the quality of something

What if the person has said "persisted"? According to Google the word persist comes from the latin and is composed of two parts:

per-
sistere

sistere means to stand which is, of course, a bodily experience of being able to stand upright which is subject to the usual forces of gravity and imbalance and fatigue that might bring about an end to that state.

per- indicates through, steadfastly which seems to repeat the idea of 'long in time'. per- is also described as an "intensive"...a word that adds magnitude or significance to the meaning it is combined with. So not just "stands" but "continually stands". Its meaning derives from the experience of wanting to call out the "intensity" of the quality. The term intensive is similarly self-referential...by some initial accident or unknown association, the per- prefix is associated with this greater emphasis. Its presence in the word with sistere or stand acts to emphasize the duration of standing.

The integrity of an object or idea, its persistence, is, therefore, metaphoric of someone or something which stands upright for a long time in a dynamic environment. Persistence, the concept, seems less poetic than "test of time" but it is not...in fact.

 

[Willamena]

All truths require a defined context. Some people feel more comfortable with sensory data (lights). Others find deeper truth in intuition (iconic). Some find that values are important (waste,


We have four cognitive functions for assessing "truth": thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition. Those truths are, furthermore, influenced by subjective considerations including the breadth of personal objective knowledge and experience.

All truths require a context, a way of knowing. Some people feel more comfortable with sensory data (thousands of lights). Others find deeper truth in intuition (iconic). Some find that values are important (waste, poor, disappointment, hopeful). Others like logic (stood...time > hopeful).

There is no perfect subjectivity or objectivity so we cannot define truth outside of our chosen "way of knowing" bias. We cannot show one way ultimately superior to another, only provisionally so in a limited context.

it is being well demonstrated in recent cognitive science that human concepts are all largely based on metaphors and that those metaphors are rooted in bodily experience. Even the sounds and movements of the mouth in forming words relate to the experience of the world that the words so uttered represent.

Time as test - the idea that the longer something persists in our world even against all the known reasons why something fails to persist has some internal characteristic which makes it more robust against those reasons which are like an examination or qualification of the integrity of that thing; this metaphor reflects a newer experience of us that we can use instruments to measure and quantify something and/or administer a set of ritualistic actions or questions to judge the quality of something

What if the person has said "persisted"? According to Google the word persist comes from the latin and is composed of two parts:

per-
sistere

sistere means to stand which is, of course, a bodily experience of being able to stand upright which is subject to the usual forces of gravity and imbalance and fatigue that might bring about an end to that state.

per- indicates through, steadfastly which seems to repeat the idea of 'long in time'. per- is also described as an "intensive"...a word that adds magnitude or significance to the meaning it is combined with. So not just "stands" but "continually stands". Its meaning derives from the experience of wanting to call out the "intensity" of the quality. The term intensive is similarly self-referential...by some initial accident or unknown association, the per- prefix is associated with this greater emphasis. Its presence in the word with sistere or stand acts to emphasize the duration of standing.

The integrity of an object or idea, its persistence, is, therefore, metaphoric of someone or something which stands upright for a long time in a dynamic environment. Persistence, the concept, seems less poetic than "test of time" but it is not...in fact.

I am not attempting to equate the proposition or words with truth. Our words are just an approximation of reality, an artifice designed to convey what we each interpret is the case. Our words are not truth. However, our words are intended to accurately convey precisely what we mean to say, even if we don't always succeed.

While I agree that we cannot put truth into words, for reasons stated, yet each of us knows unwaveringly what truth is. We are a part of, not separate from, the world, never more than a (figurative) half-step away from whatever is the case.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm glad you bought that up.
I was going to address it, but you know.....blah blah blather.
I must set limits in my posts.

The bad design is in the foundation, but because it's so
prized, people are willing to spend a fortune on measures
to fix or at least slow/stop the leaning. Good design would
wouldn't require such efforts. There are towers which are
not tipping over.

But the tower is beautifully designed and sits at the perfect jaunty angle.

The foundations are solid (ish), the earth gives way around them... Who designed the earth?

Edit. The fortune spent earns the city a decent profit from tourism, i guess the prices in the local café's and restaurants must have made generations quite wealthy.

If it didnt lean Pisa would just be an out of the way town by the sea

 

[Revoltingest]

Opinion, to me, is essentially implicitly about the subject rather than the object one is being explicit about. The person who sees hope about the future of mankind is expressing how they feel. The person who sees a waste of time and money isn't talking about himself, even implicitly.

If a value judgement is preceded by "My feeling is that...",
then this is a factual statement about one's feeling.
But without that prefix, it's a personal opinion about value.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the tower is beautifully designed and sits at the perfect jaunty angle.

The foundations are solid (ish), the earth gives way around them... Who designed the earth?

Edit. The fortune spent earns the city a decent profit from tourism, i guess the prices in the local café's and restaurants must have made generations quite wealthy.

If it didnt lean Pisa would just be an out of the way town by the sea

A good design takes into account external things which it relies upon.
Just as a truck must be designed for the roads it travels upon,
buildings must be situated upon foundations they rest upon.
Design is so much more than being attractive to the eye & bank account.

 

[ChristineM]

A good design takes into account external things which it relies upon.
Just as a truck must be designed for the roads it travels upon,
buildings must be situated upon foundations they rest upon.
Design is so much more than being attractive to the eye & bank account.

Those 900(ish) year old architects didnt quite have access to the same ground penetrating technology available today.

Lets face it, what architecturally designed building put up today is going to be still around in 850(ish) years.