So far, so good.
Yes, very often our facts are "presented as" reality, but....
And these are usually the very basic assumptions.
I'm not saying we have to re-check every assumption every time we make an observation or whatever.
There is a whole spectrum from hypothesis to "~truth" (gratis -see "theories" thread); that is, theories that are so well established as to be considered true or "a fact." As such, they form the basis for many other provisional theories (not yet gratis), weak or competing theories and hypotheses.
Regarding your above post, the beginning and up thru the dinosaur part is addressing the level of hypothesis or weak/competing theory. In that area not to many are demanding "facts" be acknowledged as absolute.
But when a theory such as evolution or relativity rises to that level of being gratis --Generally Recognized As True, in situ (in a given situation/reality) then the basic assumptions are also much more fundamental.
So what's my point? Um, let me get back to that later?
Briefly? In certain circumstances (in certain situations) it may be appropriate to acknowledge that those basic assumptions are not necessarily facts in the most ultimate sense (even though we are so used to thinking of them as ultimately true in most situations). For instance, in a discussion about religion or in a discussion about cosmology, questioning basic assumptions shouldn't be out of the question.
Maybe a better way to say it would be that if the basic assumptions or fundamental reality can't be agreed upon, then discussion is gonna be hard.
Just being aware of the ultimate limitations of knowledge can allow one to (while remaining confident in your belief that your basic assumptions are safe) try a 'thought experiment' where you provisionally adopt the other's basic assumptions. It can be very educatioinal and mentally empowering.
Okay, enough for now; computer calm -maybe too calm.
Thanks again,
Later,
~~Samwik
"Even though Maldacena's universe was very different from ours, the elegance of the theory suggested that our universe might be something of a grand illusion - an enormous cosmic hologram (New Scientist, 27 April 2002, p 22)."
