Dear Jar,
It is not my intention to offend or ridicule others; now with that in mind.
No matter how a word is misused {I.E. in slang} the proper definition of the word does not change so much that the original use is incorrect. {At lest over relatively short periods of time, say one or two hundred years historically} Also, if more people had been properly taught in school they would know that a Dictionary is used to help define words.
Unfortunately, over the last say forty years or so public schools have used the whole word method of teaching English, which, from what I’ve heard, is fine for teaching some other languages. This method, however, has repeatedly proven ineffective at teaching English.
The sad thing is that even now, after the whole word method has proven wholly inadequate for teaching English, the public school system still, on the whole, refuses to teach Phonics; which is, by the way, the old standard of teaching English.
Here is an example:
I went to school from roughly 74’ to 86’, {Yes, I am a high school dropout} in my high school years I was, what has been called, a functional illiterate. Even today, I could not spell my way out of a hat with out spell check. However, my second year of ninth grade I went to, what at the time was a new, magnet school. That year I got two hour a day of Phonetic teaching in the English language.
In that one year alone, with out any effort on my part, I learned the basics of reading. Though I dropped out two years later I had learned enough about reading that, when I found it necessary to read, I was able to bring my reading level from somewhere around third of fourth grade (which is where it was, when I dropped out) to at least twelfth grade.
Please note, I am not putting all of the blame for my lack of reading and writing skills on the public school system, there were other mitigating circumstances. However, if Phonics could teach a disinterested teen in one year what the whole word method could not teach in ten years, it seams pretty obvious which one is better at teach English.
O.K. I realize I’ve gone off on a tangent. My apologies, I’ll step down from my Phonics Soap box.
Now, where were we? O’ ya. On your second point, I have a question you may be able to answer. Why do so many people believe that just because they think that something is a certain way that that some how makes it true?
Like in the example that you quoted of mine. Do you literally believe that one day some kid, somewhere, is going to go outside in the freezing snow stick his tongue to a frozen metal pull, and not get it stuck?
The fact that someone chouses to not believe a given fact, in no way alters that fact. If I chouse to not believe that gravity pulls me {a relatively small object} toward the Earth {a relatively large object}, and jump from the top floor of the Empire State Building with nothing on but my skives, my lack of belief is not going to save me from ending up as squashed bug food.
On your last point, which is really a continuation of your second point, but I would like to reply to your statement, Every single scientific theory is like that. And they all get tested continuously, generation after generation.
Actually, I doubt that anyone is wasting their time trying to figure out whether or not the law of gravity, or any of the other basic laws of physic is still true/factual. We take them for granted, sure we are still refining our understanding of these, and other, laws, however, the laws are no longer questioned. Do not get me wrong here, there are people out there that will, like the kid who couldn’t keep his tongue to himself, experiment just to see if this law or that is still in effect, but, here again, that does not change the status of these and other facts.
The only way to correctly say that something is not a FACT is to prove that it is untrue. {I.E. It does not conform to the stated definition of what a fact it} For example:
There were those who, even today, believe that the Earth is flat. This was a fact, as far as they were concerned. Today we know that this is not true, we have proven it untrue, and therefore it is not a fact. If you were to prove that gravity does not hold us to the earth, then, and only then, could you correctly say that the law of gravity is not a fact.
So, I have stated that, If you’re up north, in the dead of winter, and it’s blow freezing, and you stick your tong to a metal pole, out side, it will get stuck there. is a fact. (Again please, do not try this one at home; or at all, for that matter) The only way you can correctly say No, it is not a fact is to give evidence to the contrary. If that evidence is strong enough then you can prove that what I said in wrong {I.E. Not factual, untrue, no so, a lie, a deception, an untruth}. Until that day, however, the fact remains true.
Simply stated, an opinion has no bearing on, does not influence what is true or factual.
Fact: 2 a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3 the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy] (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)
Truth: 2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect. (Webster’s New World College Dictionary, third Edition, 1997)
John3: 16, 17
™ Version 4.2