It's thursday.
Facts are verifiable statements and things that are verifiable are verifiable repeatably. This is not a verifiable statement.
Yes, of course.
> So, no statements about political geography at all, then.
Absolutely not, you just have to make time explicit.
Edit: It seems we're arguing about what a priori knowledge is capable of serving as a base for factual deductions. The Kantian approach is to say that we all agree on time and space and everything can be based off of these self-evident truths. I think there is not such a clear boundary between objective truth and induction.
Edit2: I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic.
> I'd also like to take this moment to point out that "you're" is the proper contraction of "you are", since we're getting all semantic.
I know, it annoys me too. By the time I'd realized it was too late to edit. Typos happen.
But they definitely were true. I thought you were making a distinction between 'something that is true' and 'something that is a fact (ie: is unchangingly true)' which I don't think most people make.