i dont think that the arguments re. "fact" are the way to go about dismissing id.
uh---facts are universal and infallible?
depends what you have defined as relevant yes?
here's a demonstration---but sadly, i can't find a graphic for this, and it is really good...ugh...-----anyway, on 1+1=2: that the statement is true depends on what you are counting.
josef albers worked out a neat demonstration for the claim 1+1=3 or more. the demonstration (along with albers quite lovely visuals) can be found in edward tufte's "envisioning information" p. 61 or in albers "search versus re-search" pp. 17-18.
the following is not as good, but it uses what i could find online....so maybe you can derive it from this:
you add one black line to another black line on a white surface...
Quote:
|
Tufte explains this concept by his example of when"you draw two black lines, a third visual activity results, a bright white path between lines.
|
if you add the two lines by placing them one across the other, 1+1=4 or more.
so an even apparently self-evident claim (1+1=2) is a function of rules that you bring to bear on the operation, and these rules are frame-contingent.
it is because "facts" are frame contingent that it matters so much which frames are brought into play.
this is not a relativist argument, btw. think about it.