Carnap's Argument: A Universal Law

Both of the class readings by Carnap and Goldstein discuss what being considered a scientific facts means. Carnap refers to scientific facts as a singular statement that needs to be differentiated from universal laws due to the common misconception. Carnap argues that many people confuse laws with facts and use the term in the wrong sense. An example from Carnap’s writing is the statement that “all ice is cold” this would be considered a universal law because it suggests that any piece of ice at any place in the universe and any time will be or previously was cold. Carnap defines a universal law as “a certain regularity that is observed at all times and all places, without exception.” On the other hand Carnap argues that when the word fact …show more content…
Goldstein argues that facts depend on the observations of people and that all observers must agree on what is being considered. Goldstein discusses many factors that are measured when determining if something is a fact or not. One of the things that are considered is the possibility that what is seen is actually a misconception this brings the question “if the eye can be fooled, when should we trust it and when not?” Facts also depend on what is relevant when they are being considered and what is not relevant when determining facts. Goldstein also discusses a case where blind people are being taught how to see after regaining their eyesight. The problem with this is they have to learn to see and if seeing is learned it may not be accurate based on the belief that it may taught wrong and we are possibly seeing incorrectly in regards to what may actually be presented. Lastly facts are theory laden, the example he uses are stones weigh a pound, but the measure system was invented by humans. All of these factors being considered when discussing facts makes it more difficult to determine if something is actually a fact or