[yoropa]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

This would piss Irencius off, but how do you explain historical facts?

Historic facts don't need much explanation. An event in history is an event in history. The reason why it happened and the exact details how it happened may not be fully clear, and are up for debate, some of which end with quite interesting results, but the event actually happening is a fact.

My earlier example was that "The United States broke from the British Empire." I think that's about as raw and general as you can make it, and I do believe everything I said with that sentence is true. Explanations of why and how are up to debate. And again you're at the mercy of the way the winner has written about it. I do believe the old saying is "History is written by the winners."

Another example is "Barack H. Obama is the current President of the United States of America. His predecessor was George W. Bush." That is true.

For example, you can use induction to assume that, because the sun rises and has always risen, it will always rise. But that's obviously not the case.

You can assume that but it isn't true. I'm trying to make a case that there is a distinction between what is true and what we think is true. I think you would agree with me that there is a distinction between the two.

EDIT: Once again I have derailed a topic. Sorry guys!