On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 22:17:15 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
"contradictory assertions"
"To what degree of certitude must the assertion be supported?"
etc.
I'll not go into more details because I actually intend not to
participate again in heated debate after already having shown
strong evidence.
Frankly, I don't understand the point you're trying to make, so
it's not really possible to rebut it.
If your point is that assertions need to have evidence to be
assertions, an easy counterproof of this is in your own quote:
"To what degree of certitude must the assertion be supported?"
... It wouldn't have been called an assertion in that sentence
unless it's something that is sure that it had been supported
sufficiently (it would have been worded more along the lines of
"To what degree of certitude must the assertion *candidate* be
supported?")
I think it's clear that the definition of assertion being
"statement of fact or belief" is compatible with the usage in
that wikipedia article.
In particular, "contradictory 'statements of fact'" and "To what
degree of certitude must the 'statements of fact' be supported?"
you suggested as examples of incompatibility actually make
perfect sense.
