Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Those who insist there is a logical gulf between facts and values, such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values (e.g., "it is good to give food to hungry people") from facts (e.g., "people will die if they can't eat"), include G. E. Moore, who called attempting to do so the naturalistic fallacy.
This barrier between fact and value, as construed in epistemology, implies it is impossible to derive ethical claims from factual arguments, or to defend the former using the latter. [2] The fact–value distinction is closely related to, and derived from, the is–ought problem in moral philosophy, characterized by David Hume. [3]
A follow-up with an evaluative function, commenting on the response to a question, is a distinguishing element of classroom conversation, and the difference between sequences with evaluative follow-ups compared to those serving as acknowledgements has been regarded as a major difference between display and referential questions. [2]
Moralistic fallacy – inferring factual conclusions from evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction (e.g.: inferring is from ought). Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge.Also called theory of knowledge, it explores different types of knowledge, such as propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge by acquaintance as a familiarity through experience.
An open question, such as "What is your name?", allows indefinitely many possible answers. A closed question admits a finite number of possible answers. Closed questions may be further subdivided into yes–no questions (such as "Are you hungry?") and alternative questions (such as "Do you want jam or marmalade?"). The distinction between these ...
The philosopher Alfred Lessing argues that the difference between questions of law and questions of fact is ill-defined, with frequent disagreement over whether a given statement was the former or the latter. The distinction between "law" and "fact" has proved obscure wherever it is employed.