Moniker wrote:Fact requires no intermediary, and must therefore be interpreted
Both parts arguably wrong individually and in conjunction: Facts being facts without observation (i.e., without an intermediary) doesn't seem to work in at least some cases (i.e. quantum theory, the bear in the woods, can this be true of mathematical truths?); additionally, interpretation might be something different than observation (though maybe not). Also, I am not sure why we would go from something that doesn't require an intermediary to requiring interpretation, unless you mean that facts must be "translated" to beliefs for human needs, or simply that they are a totally different kind of thing.
My original point is that you can change the order of the words in RAW's quote and you realize that he is talking about his opinion versus those of others, essentially privileging one kind of belief over others. This isn't a new problem, as you can go all the way back to Socrates talking about how he doesn't know anything, in an attempt to avoid this kind of trap.
And ironically (unless it was The Joke) throwing that line in somewhat undercuts the point in the rest of what he wrote, although I think he is pretty close to being right, at least in terms of sentiment about how people do things. I agree generally with what he wrote there, but had to pick at that one thing.
That doesn't mean that RAW can't be considered seriously - lots of people, including professional philosophers, have tried to find a way to say more or less exactly what he does here.
