Brute Fact
An assertion that something 'just is' without any further explanation or justification — the weak form of the dogmatic horn of Agrippa's Trilemma.
A brute fact is a fact asserted without explanation. It is not self-evident (like an axiom), not derived from other facts, and not part of a system of mutual self-grounding. It simply stops.
Brute facts and axioms both fall under the **foundational assertion** (dogmatic) horn of Agrippa's Trilemma — the chain stops with a claim accepted without further proof. The critical difference: an axiom is genuinely self-evident (denying it leads to self-contradiction), while a brute fact is simply asserted without any self-evidence. Both stop the chain, but only axioms provide real grounding.
In Debby's framework, appealing to a brute fact is treated as a **Terminal Crash** because the worldview has failed to provide justified grounding for its foundational claim.
**Example:** A materialist might assert 'The laws of logic just exist' without explaining how purely physical processes give rise to immaterial, universal, necessary truths. This is an unjustified dogmatic assertion — a brute fact, not an axiom.