Facts are always true.

Reply to Question 'Facts' are neither true nor false - statements or propositions are true or false.

Reply to Question Quoting Wayfarer

'Facts' are neither true nor false - statements or propositions are true or false.

I'd probably agree.

Although, if something is said to be truthful, is it, therefore, also the truth?

Reply to Heister Eggcart 'Speaking truthfully' is to be in accord with the facts. But not every kind of truth-statement can be validated with respect to so-called 'objective matters', as there are many kinds of judgement that require interpretation. Consider jurisprudence or history; even given the same set of facts in respect of an historical or legal issue, there can be room for divergences of interpretation.

Reply to Wayfarer This is quite sensible. Where'd you get this from?

Of course it is both a fact and true that Joe believes it is not raining. He hasn't been outside recently. That's one thing. Another thing: Is it raining? If you walk out the door and see that rain is falling, then the fact that it is raining is true. Actual rain can not begin to dissolve the fact of Joe's believing it is not raining until Joe opens the door and sees that it is raining.

If he opens the door, sees that it is raining, closes the door and says it is not raining, he is wrong about the rain. But it remains a fact that he believes it is not raining.

President Donald Trump believes the crowds watching his inauguration were larger than the crowds watching President Barack Obama's inauguration. He has been apprized of the fact that his crowd was smaller. He, however still believes that his were bigger.

For President Trump, it must be true that his crowds were bigger. He says it is a fact that they were bigger. What is true and factual is that President Trump holds a mistaken belief, and that is a fact which is true.

Whether Mr. Trump is demented, obstinate, or just plain stupid, the fact is that he is President. The truthfulness of his having taken the oath of office and now lives in the white house is a fact with which it is difficult to become fully comfortable. That is a fact for people who didn't vote for Frump. For the people who did vote for Slump, it is not true that it is difficult to feel comfortable about his living in the white house, his finger poised above the little red button that will trigger the end of life as we know it. They believe that the Stump is very clever, all wise and good, and will only drop his finger on the little red button if is in the interest of making America great again. Heil Skunk.

There are two kinds of facts: things and events. Only when put into a sentence that takes the form of a judgment (with a subject and a predicate) do they become true or false.

"Can the fact that Joe believes it isn't raining outside, while it is actually raining outside be thought to be true?"

Part of my question has to do with the verification of facts? How do we know that something can be actually true, because what happens when facts contradict each other?

Quoting Heister Eggcart

This is quite sensible. Where'd you get this from?

Naturally, you are referencing my sensible post which was about to appear when you mistakenly addressed praise to Wayfarer. People are ignoring my posts again, so I have to seize whatever recognition i can.

Reply to Question The fact of Joe's belief doesn't contradict the fact of rain falling. What is contradictory is Joe seeing rain and continuing to believe that it is not raining.

Joe is entitled to his own beliefs, but he isn't entitled to his own facts.

A lot of epistemological positions are plagued by this matter - is there a fact of the matter whether or not facts are always true? What about that, is there a fact for that meta-fact? Where do we end?

It's not just correspondence theories of truth that suffer from this. Any theory that admits truth-like entities is going to have to deal with this apparent regress.

Quoting Heister Eggcart

Where'd you get this from?

I composed it myself X-)

Quoting darthbarracuda

Any theory that admits truth-like entities is going to have to deal with this apparent regress.

Heaven forbid. Hard enough to deal with 'alternative facts' in the current climate.

Reply to darthbarracuda

Yes, the counterargument is that 'in reality' something is the fact of the matter. Using such a terms as 'in reality' or 'actually' just shift the problem to another word, namely 'in reality' or 'actually'.

Reply to Wayfarer I agree with this. Facts have no truth condition. They just are. Propositions have truth conditions.

Reply to Bitter Crank

So does that make truth relativistic? One can believe something; but, it may actually* not be true.

*Notice how 'actually' keeps on popping up, whether one likes it or not.

Reply to Question 2+2=4 is always and everywhere true. 1 gallon of H2O weighs 8 pounds always and everywhere is true here, but it wouldn't be true on Mars. So, a gallon of water weighing 8 pounds is relative to the planet on which it is being weighed. It isn't always and everywhere 8 pounds in weight.

John Keats' concluding line to An Ode on a Grecian urn...

'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'

sounds good but as far as I can tell, it isn't true. It depends how you define beauty and truth. As for that being all we know on earth, no -- that is not true either. It certainly isn't true that that is all we need to know. None the less, some people maintain this is all true. So Keats' truth is relative--in my book. (I have very mixed feelings about Keats. It's been a long time since I read him. I suppose I should give him a second chance.)

"Having more than one wife at a time is immoral." Some would say that is true, some would disagree.

Evidently truth is relative.

Facts are just statements that lots of people agree on - always subject to change. They may even believe that they are agreeing on the same facts but after a little discussion may learn that they don't agree. Like everything else in the universe, everything is always changing. The universe is very malleable.

Quoting Wayfarer

Heaven forbid. Hard enough to deal with 'alternative facts' in the current climate.

>:O

Reply to Question

'It is a fact that' and 'it is true that' are synonymous, so 'a fact' means the same as 'true'. That is one sense of 'fact', facts as true statements. This is the same sense in which the encyclopedia is a compendium of facts.

The other sense is where 'fact' is thought as more akin to 'actuality'.

So 'fact' is an equivocal term. The semantic relationships between truths, facts and actualities as shown by ordinary usages are somewhat ambiguous.

There is a theory of truth called 'correspondence theory of truth'. It says that x is true if and only if x corresponds to the fact. However, many philosophers have objected to correspondence theory of truth for many reasons. Alternative positions are deflationary theory of truth, coherence theory of truth, and so on.

Quoting Question

So does that make truth relativistic? One can believe something; but, it may actually not be true.

This speaks for truth not being relative. Something is true whether you believe it or not.

And what BC sees as the relativity of truth is just the ambiguity of his example statements.

Quoting Bitter Crank

1 gallon of H2O weighs 8 pounds always and everywhere is true

But it's not, and adding the word "here" shows that you know it. On the other hand, "1 gallon of H2O weighs 8 pounds always and everywhere on Earth" is true. There is no case for the relativity of truth here, unless you just mean that a statement can turn out to be either true or false depending on how clear it is, or depending on your interpretation. Interpretations are relative, but interpretations are implicit reformulations--which is where things get interesting.

Quoting quine

It says that x is true if and only if x corresponds to the fact. However, many philosophers have objected to correspondence theory of truth for many reasons.

True! I have a collection of such objections which I have come across on forums over the years. Basically, it comes down to the fact that if a statement and some purported fact are said to correspond, then what does 'correspondence' actually mean?

According to this theory (correspondence), truth consists in the agreement of our thought with reality. This view ... seems to conform rather closely to our ordinary common sense usage when we speak of truth. The flaws in the definition arise when we ask what is meant by "agreement" or "correspondence" of ideas and objects, beliefs and facts, thought and reality. In order to test the truth of an idea or belief we must presumably compare it with the reality in some sense.

1- In order to make the comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the belief on the one hand and the reality on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?

2- The making of the comparison is itself a fact about which we have a belief. We have to believe that the belief about the comparison is true. How do we know that our belief in this agreement is "true"? This leads to an infinite regress, leaving us with no assurance of true belief.

Randall, J. & Buchler, J.; Philosophy: An Introduction. p133

Although it seems ... obvious to say, "Truth is correspondence of thought (belief, proposition) to what is actually the case", such an assertion nevertheless involves a metaphysical assumption - that there is a fact, object, or state of affairs, independent of our knowledge to which our knowledge corresponds.

"How, on your principles, could you know you have a true proposition?" ... or ... "How can you use your definition of truth, it being the correspondence between a judgment and its object, as a criterion of truth? How can you know when such correspondence actually holds?"

I cannot step outside my mind to compare a thought in it with something outside it.

Beck, L.W. & Holmes, R.L.; Philosophic Inquiry, p130.

Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognising it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object.

Kant, 1801. The Jasche Logic, in Lectures on Logic.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary,

Since the word fact means "a real occurrence, something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed," the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known, would seem to be redundant. But fact has a long history of use in the sense of "an allegation of fact" or "something that is believed to be true," [my emphasis] as in this remark by union leader Albert Shanker: "This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong." This usage has led to the notion of "incorrect facts," which causes qualms among critics who insist that facts must be true. The usages, however, are often helpful in making distinctions or adding emphasis.

This is really just a trivial semantic issue (as most of these discussions are). There are statements, there are (other) things in the world that the former allege to describe, and we might use the word "fact" (and sometimes also "truth") to refer to either these latter things or to the former (either when they actually do describe the latter or – at least in the case of "fact" as mentioned above – even when we only believe that they do).

But perhaps an interesting consideration is the following statements:

1a. It is a fact that the ball is red
1b. "the ball is red" is a fact
1c. The red ball is a fact

2a. It is true that the ball is red
2b. "the ball is red" is true
2c. The red ball is true

3a. It is a truth that the ball is red
3b. "the ball is red" is a truth
3c. The red ball is a truth

Do they all make sense?

Quoting Question

So, are facts always true?

Only if you assume that to be is also to be true.

Quoting Question

And what are 'facts' exactly?

States of affairs.

Quoting Question

Can the fact that Joe believes it isn't raining outside, while it is actually raining outside be thought to be true?

The truth of the two facts is independent from each other. The fact that Joe believes so and so is referring to what his beliefs are. The fact that it is raining outside is referring to what the states of affairs outside are. So yes, surprise surprise, but Joe could actually have wrong beliefs >:O

It is impossible to separate an observation from the observation. It cannot be done. Without the observer there is no memory of the event from which the so-called fact emerges. It is only when many concur, often by repetitive education or indoctrination, does some observation begin to emerge as some general agreement that it is a fact. For example, people turn to a reference book for "facts". That is how facts emerge in a population.

Nothing wrong with general agreement within a population as long as everyone understands that these agreements tend to change over time and writhin different populations. Everyone is educated differently.

Reply to Question

Yes, I think you can say that facts are always true. Determining what are the facts is not such a trivial matter in science, and politically at least here in US.

The new administration wants us to believe "alternate facts", that climate change is a myth, that twice the number of people showed up for his administration as reported....the ideological rendering of events... He has ordered all Federal agencies under the executive branch to stop communication with media. He wants all information to be channeled through his command structure.

Trump's press secretary suggested yesterday that Trump is a conspiracy theorist. He is an example of a person who can brush aside demonstrable facts for what he believes and many actually accept his view.

So I guess, at least in politics we need to ask, whose facts.

Reply to Question
Facts are just pieces of data that may (or may not be) relevant, however they are not the 'truth'.

Quoting Wayfarer

Facts' are neither true nor false - statements or propositions are true or false.

^ This.

(And something else I agree with Wayfarer on.)

Quoting Thorongil

There are two kinds of facts: things and events.

Not two different "kinds" in my view: Things are events

Quoting Bitter Crank

If you walk out the door and see that rain is falling, then the fact that it is raining is true.

Rather, "If you walk out the door and see that rain is falling, then along with Joe, you'd believe that it's raining, and along with Joe, you'd assign 'T' to 'It is raining.'"

Quoting Bitter Crank

He has been apprized of the fact that his crowd was smaller. He, however still believes that his were bigger.

Or, other people have said that they believe that the crowds were smaller, and other people instead assign "T" to "The crowds were smaller, not larger."

We can't escape the fact that no matter what, we're talking about beliefs that we have, things we assign "T" (or "F" or whatever) to.

Quoting Bitter Crank

For President Trump, it must be true that his crowds were bigger. He says it is a fact that they were bigger. What is true and factual is that President Trump holds a mistaken belief, and that is a fact which is true.

And for other folks, "it must be true that the crowds were smaller; they say it is a fact that they were smaller." And Trump would say, "What is true and factual is that other people hold a mistaken belief."

Again, it's not the case that some folks only have beliefs and things they assign "T" to whereas other folks aren't operating from beliefs and things that they assign "T" to. That's what everyone is doing, and it's all we can do. We can't escape that fact anymore than we can outrun our shadows.

Quoting Question

Part of my question has to do with the verification of facts? How do we know that something can be actually true, because what happens when facts contradict each other?

What you'd be verifying is a claim or a belief, not a fact. Facts do not need verification. They are what they are regardless. "Actually true" is a category error, because it suggests something being true outside of a person judging that it's true. The category error typically arises because people conflate truth and facts. And facts can't contradict each other.

Quoting Bitter Crank

What is contradictory is Joe seeing rain and continuing to believe that it is not raining.

That's not clearly contradictory either. In order to have a contradiction, you need something like, "Joe believes that it is raining and Joe believes that it is not raining" (where we're not equivocating re what's being referred to on either side of the conjunction). I say not clearly contradictory, though, because it depends on just what we're talking about when we say that "Joe sees rain." Did Joe say that he saw rain? Or is someone else saying that?


.

Quoting Question

So does that make truth relativistic?

Yes. Truth is relative to individuals, who are the persons making the judgments about how propositions relate to facts, or other propositions, or what's useful, etc. (depending on the truth theory they employ).

Facts are relative, too, by the way, in their case, to reference points, for example.

Quoting John

'It is a fact that' and 'it is true that' are synonymous

Only colloquially, where someone doesn't understand the standard distinction between facts and truth values.

If we're going to endorse colloquial conventions in that way, then we'd better also limit our metaphysics talk to parapsychology topics.

Quoting jamalrob

But it's not, and adding the word "here" shows that you know it. On the other hand, "1 gallon of H2O weighs 8 pounds always and everywhere on Earth" is true. There is no case for the relativity of truth here, unless you just mean that a statement can turn out to be either true or false depending on how clear it is, or depending on your interpretation. Interpretations are relative, but interpretations are implicit reformulations--which is where things get interesting.

I'm fine with truths like "3+5=8"; "the table of elements is accounts for all the matter that we have encountered"§; "the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776"; and so on. These truths state facts that can be proved, and whose proof is universally accepted.

But then there are other kinds of truths and facts. "William the Conqueror won the battle at Hastings." Fine, fact and truth match. "His victory resulted in beneficial changes in England." As far as I can tell, truth and fact match here, but it is possible to disagree with the facts and truth. "William's victory ruined the English language" is true, in that Old English was transformed. Whether "ruined", "corrupted," "transformed", or "enriched" are all true or not depends on how you define ruin, corrupt, transform, and enrich. There are facts supporting various interpretations. Isn't there more than one 'truth' here?

Then there are a lot of treasured statements about truth which that are not connected to any facts at all.

Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

John 8:32 you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...

[quote]John 18:38 "What is truth? retorted Pilate."

"Philosophy is a search for THE TRUTH." So, is philosophy in search of truths that match facts? Like "Fish absorb oxygen through their gills."


§Dark matter is thought to exist, thought to be necessary, but we haven't 'apprehended it' yet.

Reply to Bitter Crank Well like I say, that's where things get interesting. (Y)

Reply to Terrapin Station OK, it is a true fact that more precision is needed in my statements. Maybe.

Quoting Bitter Crank

OK, it is a true fact

(It's not a true fact)

Reply to Terrapin Station Well then, if it isn't, wtf kind of fact is it? If I said it is a true fact about my statements...

Reply to Bitter Crank

Again, facts aren't true or false. Propositions are true or false.

Think of a bunch of cows in a field versus paintings of a bunch of cows in a field. The paintings are what are impressionist or surrealist or pointillist or realist or whatever style they're done in. The cows in the field aren't impressionist or surrealist etc. Those terms describe the paintings.

True and false are terms that "describe" propositions. Saying "true fact" is like saying "impressionist cows in the field."

Quoting Terrapin Station

Again, facts aren't true or false. Propositions are true or false.

Some use the term "fact" to mean "true proposition".

As for false facts, there's an interesting analogy given here:

Context can negate part of the definition of a word. "Artificial light" is light that is artificial (= "man-made"), but "artificial flowers" are not flowers (i.e., genuine spermatophyte reproductive orders) that are artificial. In the latter phrase, "artificial" negates part of the definition of "flower". The bats known as "false vampires" do not feed on blood: "false" negates part of the definition of "vampire".

The ordinary definition of "fact" includes the idea of "true" (e.g., fact vs fiction); the meaning of "fact" does have other aspects (e.g., fact vs opinion). Context can negate the idea of "true". …

It follows that "true fact" need not be a redundancy.

So a phrase like "false fact" could be comparable to phrases like "artificial flower" or "toy gun", with "true fact" comparable to "real flower" or "real gun".

Quoting Michael

Some use the term "fact" to mean "true proposition".

As I said above to John:

Only colloquially, where someone doesn't understand the standard distinction between facts and truth values.

If we're going to endorse colloquial conventions in that way, then we'd better also limit our metaphysics talk to parapsychology topics.

Reply to Question

Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values, they are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world.

-Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

Although it seems ... obvious to say, "Truth is correspondence of thought (belief, proposition) to what is actually the case", such an assertion nevertheless involves a metaphysical assumption - that there is a fact, object, or state of affairs, independent of our knowledge to which our knowledge corresponds.

See, and here is the gist of the issue. Assuming that facts are always true turns truth into a metaphysical concept of "perceiving the world correctly" or "as it actually is". There is no escape from the fact that facts cannot be asserted without an observer, and this turns truth into a noumenon.

Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values, they are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world.

Does anyone else notice the ambiguity and quite actually contradiction in terms in the bolded text?

How can a fact be an object of certain mental states? This is gibberish.

Quoting Question

How can a fact be an object of certain mental states?

I wouldn't use the word "object," but I'd say that perceptual mental states are of external facts. Of course, I'm a direct/"naive" realist on phil of perception, and maybe you're not.

Reply to Question "Facts" or rather memory states are no different from any other object in that b they are all fundamentally energetic in nature. The difference is on substantiality.

Quoting Question

So, are facts always true?

Note that this is a question about English grammar. It is asking the correct use of the word 'fact'.

Quoting Banno

It is asking the correct use of the word 'fact'

Natural response is:
What is the correct use of the word 'fact'?

Quoting Question

What is the correct use of the word 'fact'?

Good question. In English we have no Academy to decide such things. So in a way Humpty was right. But it behoves us to at least be consistent in our use of "fact". We should have some sort of agreement.

Reply to Terrapin Station

The meaning of a word is given by conventional usage, and there are many words which are polysemous. 'Fact' is one of them. You may prefer the usages within which 'fact' appears more akin to 'actuality' or 'state of affairs', but that fact says more about you than about the general understanding of what facts consist in, and how facts relates to truths and actualities. The example I gave of the encyclopedia, which is generally understood to be a compendium of facts, shows an understanding which is alternative to yours. Do you think it makes sense to say that the encyclopedia is a compendium of states of affairs, or a compendium of actualities?

Reply to John

So what's your excuse for not sticking to parapsychology when we talk of metaphysics?

Quoting Michael

But perhaps an interesting consideration is the following statements:

1a. It is a fact that the ball is red
1b. "the ball is red" is a fact
1c. The red ball is a fact

2a. It is true that the ball is red
2b. "the ball is red" is true
2c. The red ball is true

3a. It is a truth that the ball is red
3b. "the ball is red" is a truth
3c. The red ball is a truth

Do they all make sense?

They all display a conflation of use and mention in their conclusions. For me, the 'b' premise follows form the 'a' premise. I think it is more the kinds of colloquial usages such as "The hot weather is a fact" which seems to make 'fact' synonymous with 'actuality or 'state of affairs' and thus of the world rather than of statements about the world. Perhaps it is merely sloppy usage. 'That the weather is hot is a fact' seems to make more sense to me. On the other hand I think there is not sufficient consistency in the use of the word 'fact' to enable us to definitely settle on one sense or the other, so we are forced to accept that facts are slippery criitters that transmogrify constantly from being truths into being actualities and back again.

Reply to Terrapin Station

What are you trying to get at here? You've lost me, I don't see the connection; I don't know if you are trying to make a joke or a serious point.

Reply to Bitter Crank I'll pay attention to you, because you drew attention to the salient feature of alternative facts. As you pointed out, Conway meant something most of us would agree with: Trump has alternate beliefs. But she is became a purveyor of lubricant by the rhetorical move of elevating "belief" to "fact".

And that's it. There are no profound metaphysical questions here. Only questions about how we speak and write.

Reply to John

In colloquial conventions, which are far more popular than any philosophical usage of terms, "metaphysics" refers to paranormal/parapsychological content--ghosts, pyramid power, telekinesis, etc.

Reply to Banno

See.

Quoting Banno

We should have some sort of agreement.

I propose the following rough scheme, which I think is acceptable to most philosophers, even though common usage may deviate at times.

Factual statements are statements of fact, where facts are states of affairs.
Statements of fact are true or false according to whether the stated state of affairs obtains or not.
Statements are true or false; facts obtain.

Thus the statement "the cat is on the mat" is true whenever the cat is in fact on the mat, and otherwise false. The facts themselves are simply the way things are and cannot be true or false, but 'the facts as stated' (and this is slightly looser talking, more strictly, 'the statement of facts') can be, and is, either true or false.

This handily avoids any talk of knowledge or belief or senses or memory or experience, which can be discussed another time. Thus you may have an alternative statement (of fact), such as "The cat is not on the mat.". In such case, we have alternative statements of fact which are contradictory, and one statement or the other is necessarily false, because the facts themselves cannot be contradictory any more than they can be true or false.

Reply to unenlightened

Who decides? How do you get personal, subjective observation out of the mix? Impossible.

Reply to Question I think Reply to unenlightened answered your problem. Facts are not the sort of thing that can be true or false; truth and false are predications of statements, not facts.

So no one is Quoting Question

assuming that facts are always true

.

Reply to Rich You don't often get to decide what is true. Rather you get to decide what you believe.

Reply to Banno

Agreed. So facts are just beliefs since there is no way to decide what is a fact without decisions.

Reply to Terrapin Station

So what? I don't see an analogy here. If there is a concern about the 'proper' philosophical sense of a term, there must be contradictions, inconsistencies or ambiguities in common usages. This is not the case with 'metaphysics', which simply means 'beyond physics'. If some popular notions of parapsychology take it to be beyond physics I don't see how that is relevant at all.

It's not as though there are some actual entities out there,facts, about which we could be right or wrong to refer to them as 'facts'. You still haven't answered the questions about whether you consider it incorrect to refer to encyclopedias as compendiums of facts. What consequence us the questions in any case. If 'fact' is a troublesome term then why not stick to using just 'truth' and 'actuality'?

Reply to Rich No. Facts are there regardless of what you believe.

Quoting Banno

Facts are not the sort of thing that can be true or false; truth and false are predications of statements, not facts.

Truths are also not the sort of thing that can be true or false. From the SEP Facts:

[b]2.4. Facts and Propositions

As we pointed out above, one view about facts is that to be a fact is to be a true proposition. On another, incompatible view, facts are what make true propositions true, or more generally, account for their truth.[/b]

Reply to Banno

Then who decides what is a fact?

Reply to Rich Facts are not usually the sort of thing that is decided. (I think i already said that).

Reply to John Yes. And?

Reply to Banno Then I'm really confused. Without divine intervention, how do facts come into being?

Quoting John

So what? I don't see an analogy here.

Quoting John

The meaning of a word is given by conventional usage,

Quoting Terrapin Station

In colloquial conventions, which are far more popular than any philosophical usage of terms, "metaphysics" refers to paranormal/parapsychological content--ghosts, pyramid power, telekinesis, etc.

Quoting John

They all display a conflation of use and mention in their conclusions.

Conclusions? There weren't any arguments there, just 9 separate statements (which I broke up into three groupings). Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Reply to Banno

I had thought that you were weighing in on the side of the debate that claims that facts are unequivocally actualities rather than truths. If I misinterpreted your position, then forget it.

Reply to Rich Choose an example.

Reply to John What can be equivocated are statements.

Reply to Banno

Any fact that I utter. I made the decision or others made the decision and I just agree. July 4th is Independence Day. Someone decided it. I was taught to believe it. I repeat it. I get this belief from my memory.

Reply to Terrapin Station

The two uses of 'metaphysics' both refer to what is understood to be 'beyond the physical' in some sense understood by the user, so still no contradictions, inconsistencies or ambiguities to be seen.

And still no answer to my question, which doesn't surprise me at all.

To explain again, the two notions of fact, as outlined in the passage from the SEP article Facts, the notion of 'fact as actuality' is incompatible with the notion of 'fact as truth', and this is because 'actuality' and 'truth' are ( mostly) not understood to be equivalent since truths are generally thought be of or about actualities. Facts, on the other hand, can either be thought to be of actualities (facts about the weather, for example) or actualities (the bad weather is a fact, for example).

Reply to Rich First, one use of "fact" is as a synonym for "statement". You are doing this when you say:Quoting Rich

Any fact that I utter.

. Another use of 'fact' is as a state of affairs. You cannot utter a state of affairs.

Second, the date of independence is a cultural agreement. That salt is composed of chlorine and sodium isn't.

Third, that we express the fact that salt is composed of chlorine and sodium in English as "salt is composed of chlorine and sodium" is a cultural fact about English.

Reply to Banno

Sure, you can have the statement that facts are actualities and the incompatible statement that facts are truths. I'm not seeing your point, though.

Quoting John

The two uses of 'metaphysics' both refer to what is understood to be 'beyond the physical'

Actually, that's not at all the philosophical usage.

Quoting Rich

Agreed. So facts are just beliefs since there is no way to decide what is a fact without decisions.

That's not the way I have proposed talking at all and seems very confused and confusing. If I believe that the cat is on the mat, then I believe that "the cat is on the mat" is a true statement. I might be wrong, and the statement might be false, in which case my belief is false. Whether is is a true or false belief, and a true or false statement depends, not on any decision of mine, but on the whereabouts of the cat.

I take it that the cat is somewhere or other, and we might be able to locate it. If this is not ever the case, then there is no world, no state of affairs, no fact, and no truth. Nothing left to talk about.

Reply to Michael

OK, no worries, my mistake; it looked to me as if the 'c' statements were being offered as conclusions to the 'a' and 'b' statements in each case. In any case I don't think the statements are all consistent with one another because of the use/mention conflations.

Reply to Banno

If you can't utter it then it is some idea in someone's memory and therefore as yet had not become a fact but rather a potential fact - I guess. Of course, someone may be satisfied with potential facts forever in one's memory never to be uttered.

Once it is uttered, then it is a belief - one that may be shared by some or many others, subject to change. The primary difference between a fact and a brief is the weight that one wishes to imbue into the statement. But that is a matter of public discourse.

Reply to Terrapin Station

Really, what is the philosophical usage then?

Reply to John My point is that the answer to the question in the OP is that the question itself is grammatically erroneous; with the corollary that facts are not the sort of thing that can be true or false.

Are you objecting to my point? If so, how?

Quoting unenlightened

Whether is is a true or false belief, and a true or false statement depends, not on any decision of mine, but on the whereabouts of the cat.

Then who decides is the whereabouts of the cat? I cannot see how a fact can be divorced from the uttered fact.

The bulk of metaphysics is ontology. It also traditionally refers to "first principles" and philosophy of religion (in combination with ontology). Weird that you wouldn't know this. Don't you have some general education in philosophy?

Reply to Terrapin Station There is only one philosophical use?

Quoting Rich

Then who decides is the whereabouts of the cat?

Presumably, the cat.

Reply to Banno

There's only one standard philosophical usage, yes.

Reply to Banno

No, I agree with you that facts are not the sort of things that can be true or false, as is evinced by my pointing out that truths are not either.

Reply to John

Truths are not the sorts of things that can be true?

Quoting Rich

Then who decides is the whereabouts of the cat? I cannot see how a fact can be divorced from the uttered fact.

My experience is that cats decide for themselves to the extent that they are at liberty to, and that they do this without uttering.

Reply to Banno

I hope the cat is a good observer and shares his position accurately without uttering.

Reply to unenlightened

So it is your understanding that cats know about mats and can communicate their position on the mat telepathically with humans? At that point, I guess, the human needs to be able to convey this amazing fact without uttering? Are these the facts that we are discussing? I hope not.

Quoting Banno

My point is that the answer to the question in the OP is that the question itself is grammatically erroneous; with the corollary that facts are not the sort of thing that can be true or false.

Well, it's hard to disagree with states of affairs. Provided, Joe believes that it is not raining outside, when actually it is, then facts are always true, if they weren't then we'd all be solipsists arguing over what red, white, and blue really look like with other solipsists.

Reply to Terrapin Station So you are claiming that all philosophers use the word in the same way?

Reply to John OK. So we agree so far?

Reply to Terrapin Station

Actually there is no unequivocal philosophical definition of .metaphysics', and I think it is generally understood to be distinct from ontology; so I wouldn't agree that it is "mostly ontology'. If you think that is, then what would be the differences between the two disciplines and if there are no significant differences then why not dispense with one or the other?

[b]From the Online Dictionary of Etymology:
meta-
word-forming element meaning 1. "after, behind," 2. "changed, altered," 3. "higher, beyond;" from Greek meta (prep.) "in the midst of; in common with; by means of; between; in pursuit or quest of; after, next after, behind," in compounds most often meaning "change" of place, condition, etc. This is from PIE *me- "in the middle" (source also of German mit, Gothic miþ, Old English mið "with, together with, among;" see mid). Notion of "changing places with" probably led to senses "change of place, order, or nature," which was a principal meaning of the Greek word when used as a prefix (but also denoting "community, participation; in common with; pursuing").

Third sense, "higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of," is due to misinterpretation of metaphysics as "science of that which transcends the physical." This has led to a prodigious erroneous extension in modern usage, with meta- affixed to the names of other sciences and disciplines, especially in the academic jargon of literary criticism.[/b]

Metaphysics, as Aristotle is usually taken to have originally used it meant 'after physics'.

In any case the point is that in philosophy today metaphysics is generally understood to deal with matters outside of (beyond) the scope of empirical (physical) inquiry.

Anyway, I love the way you throw in red herrings to avoid answering the difficult questions that are put to you. .

Reply to Banno

Seems so.

Reply to Rich I won't be offering you much more than some statements and maybe a question or two. If you were sitting on a mat within range I might kick you.

One can observe cats. one can notice where they are, on or off the mat. What's all the nonsense about?

Reply to unenlightened

Just want to know who decides? Who is nominated to decide what is a fact based upon their observations? And how is this communicated? Very fundamental. Very simple.

Quoting Banno

So you are claiming that all philosophers use the word in the same way?

Is that what "standard usage" refers to?

Reply to Terrapin Station

Try reading more closely: I said "true or false".

Reply to John

Are you not familiar with the truth tables for disjunctions?

Quoting John

I think it is generally understood to be distinct from ontology

You think wrong.

Quoting Rich

Just want to know who decides? Who is nominated to decide what is a fact based upon their observations? And how is this communicated? Very fundamental. Very simple.

Ok, I decide, and I tell you and you have to accept it. This is not the case is it? No one decides the facts, people find out the facts, or sometimes they don't. Quite often I have no idea where the cat is. But your silliness is boring me now, so I'll duck out.

Quoting Terrapin Station

"standard usage"

Is there such a thing in English?

Should we take a descriptive or proscriptive approach?

I vote descriptive.

Reply to unenlightened

Then it is pretty much what I described originally. A belief which a certain population agrees upon as being a fact. The population can be one, two, or more. Problems arise when two populations disagree upon what was thought to be facts. The attribute "fact" is just assigned to this belief to give it more weight. Rather than say: "I believe" it is said "It is a fact", followed, of course, but the discussion where the are disagreements. Every discipline had facts that are in constant dispute. It fills libraries.

Quoting Rich

Then it is pretty much what I described originally. A belief which a certain population agrees upon as being a fact. The population can be one, two, or more. Problems arise when two populations disagree upon what was thought to be facts. The attribute "fact" is just signed to this belief to give it more weight. Rather than say: "I believe" it is said "It is a fact", followed, of course, but the discussion where the are disagreements. Every discipline had facts that are in constant dispute. It fills libraries.

Reply to Rich All you have done here is misuse the word fact. A fact is what is the case regardless of your belief, not because of it.

Is it a fact that 2+2=4?

Still think use of the word 'fact' is equivocal. Sure I can accept that facts are neither true nor false, simply states of affairs, but who decides what are those states of affair. It is easy to determine if 'the cat is on the mat' is a fact is quite another thing to say that salt is comprised of sodium & chlorine.

It seems that I can easily tell whether or not the cat is on the mat, but in the case of what salt is composed of, I have had to accept a whole conceptual frame work to recognize that it is a fact.


Just noticed Question's '2+2=4' question. I don't consider it a fact, that is a true statement.

Reply to Question

The arithmetic symbolic representation is something that is learned as a child and is merely a convention.

The actual imprinting of this concept as something meaningful in someone's memory has been an ongoing area of investigation. It was a very important part of Bergson's intensive study as well as Piaget who studied under Bergson. I don't think there is any concenus of how this concept comes into being. The old nurture vs. nature debate I imagine. Part psychology, part metaphysics. It is a subject that I am just beginning to study. It is by no means a closed subject.

Reply to Cavacava

I am not convinced that simply because someone is sure about something, e.g. where the cat is, is enough to make it a fact. Being positive about something appears to be just a very strong belief. These kind of facts or beliefs are constantly being contested in courts of law.

Quoting Banno

A fact is what is the case regardless of your belief...

Is it a fact that
facts are what is the case regardless of your belief
or
is it true that
facts are what is the case regardless of your belief?

Reply to m-theory Oooo! Recursion! How exciting!

Facts as states of affairs, or what make true statements true, can only hold an ontological distinction between facts and true statements, and not an epistemic one. As you can't actually distinguish the two in practice, let alone say what, in what way, or what is the nature of the relationship between them.

We require this ontological distinction though, to make sense of counter-factuals, fantasy, and to distinguish between words themselves, and what those words are about. Again, the relationship between the two is not obvious.

That there is a distinction though, and that these are separate things that somehow relate in important consistent ways is difficult to doubt though, and all but required for meta-discourse on the subject.

Reply to Banno
I guess another way to interpret my question would be

Why can't it be true that
facts are what is the case regardless of your beliefs
and a fact that
facts are what is the case regardless of your beliefs

Reply to m-theory If you want.

Not at all sure how this helps, though.

Reply to m-theory

If facts are the case regardless of beliefs then they are inaccessible, and therefore becomes a general concept with no concrete examples.

Quoting Question

Is it a fact that 2+2=4?

Sure thing. But whether mathematics is a social construction, or refers to something independent of thought, is another kind of question altogether, namely, a metaphysical question.

And I think it ought to be mentioned that in general terms positivism is the attempt to ground all philosophical discourse in verifiable fact; to establish a 'foundation of certainty' from which inferences can be drawn. (Come to think of it, you can see the echo of Descartes in that).

Quoting Rich

If facts are the case regardless of beliefs then they are inaccessible

Why would you think that?

Reply to Banno

If it is not a belief then one must claim that they have the ability to state a fact without imbuing the statement without any personal subjectivity. It may be possible for someone with infallibility who can totally remove all subjectivity from their utterances. I believe some feel that the Pope has such abilities.

Quoting Rich

the ability to state a fact without imbuing the statement with and personal subjectivity

"The cat is on the mat".

There, done.

So your claim seems to hinge on the impossibility of a commonplace.

Reply to Banno So you say based upon your own perceptions and understanding of what it means to be on a mat. Someone else from a different angle may say differently. Hence, the court case where all kinds of evidence, some falsified, are introduced. It's only simple in the conceptual, but once it becomes concrete, the concept cannot be implemented. Hence only viable in an abstract discussion.

A man - not a man - throws a stone - not a stone - at a bird - not a bird - on a tree - not a tree ~ Riddle told by Plato.

Interpretation: A eunuch throws a piece of pumice at a bat hanging off a reed.

Read that years ago, only now beginning to get it. X-)

Reply to Rich You are still confusing truth and belief.

Quoting Rich

Someone else from a different angle may say differently.

she is wrong.

Reply to Banno One must always be vigalent for liars posing as fact givers. That is why we have journalists all providing the public with contradictory facts. I guess the trained professionals have the last word on the delivery of facts.

Reply to Rich An odd thing to say, if you deny the distinction between beliefs and facts.

A lie occurs when someone knows what is true, and yet makes a statement that is contrary to that truth. If one denies the distinction between belief and truth, then a lie must be were someone believes one thing but says another.

Quoting Rich

contradictory facts

An oxymoron.

Quoting Banno

A lie occurs when someone knows what is true, and yet makes a statement that is contrary to that truth. If one denies the distinction between belief and truth, then a lie must be were someone believes one thing but says another.

Someone simply has a belief about something at the current time and states it or doesn't, as they wish. This belief changes as the memory of that belief changes because there is nothing concrete. Just a memory that is always being influenced and always changing. Facts today, fine tomorrow.

Quoting Banno

— Rich

An oxymoron.

Not to the journalists. Contradiction to the reader. Everyone is just giving the facts. They just happen to contradict for reasons already explained.

Reply to Rich Think I might throw stones while Un kicks you. At least until you admit that there are stones being thrown.

Quoting Banno

Facts are not the sort of thing that can be true or false; truth and false are predications of statements, not facts.

Consider 1. it is true that the ball is red and 2. it is a fact that the ball is red. They seem to say the same thing, and so "true" and "a fact" are interchangeable in this context. If so, and if being true is something that propositions are, then being a fact is something that propositions are.

So if 1 is another way to say "the ball is red" is true then surely 2 is another way to say "the ball is red" is a fact. Which then means that in this context, facts are true by definition.

Reply to Banno

Can propositions not be factual or non-factual, just as they can be true or false?

Quoting Wayfarer

Facts' are neither true nor false - statements or propositions are true or false.

Actually I will qualify my initial response - propositions are true or false in respect of the facts. If something which had been thought a fact is found to be false, then we don't say it's a 'false fact' - we might say 'that supposed fact has been proven not to be the case'. From which it follows that what is taken to be a fact, is assumed to be really the case. So, a 'false fact' is an oxymoron; 'a fact' is what is held to be the case. For that reason, even though the thread title is inelegantly worded, I think it is nevertheless correct.

Facts and truths can be distinguished conceptually through negation, as I suggested. Both true and untrue statements obtain, whereas only facts obtain, non-facts do not. One cannot say, or point out, or think a factual thing without invoking a true thing. They cannot be distinguished on that end, but we all know that too many false statements obtain, but not too many counter-factuals do.

Quoting Wosret

Both true and untrue statements obtain

I would say that both factual, and non-factual statements obtain if by "obtain" you mean something like "are relevant", just as true and false statements do.

Reply to John

I mean it in a sense like "can be come upon". I can come across untrue statements or unfactual statements even (if you like), but I cannot come across untrue things, or counter-factual things. Do you agree?

Reply to Wosret

Yes I do agree with that.

Reply to John

It doesn't make any difference to me about the words being used, but I do think that there is a clear difference between propositions and reality, even though they cannot be easily separated on the one end.

Quoting Wayfarer

So, a 'false fact' is an oxymoron; 'a fact' is what is held to be the case.

As with the earlier analogy, is "artificial flower" an oxymoron? I wouldn't say so. Even though artificial flowers aren't flowers, the term is still acceptable. It refers to things which appear to be flowers but aren't actually so. In the same vein, "false fact" might be an acceptable term that refers to things which appear to be facts but aren't actually so.

Quoting Michael

In the same vein, "false fact" might be an acceptable term that refers to things which appear to be facts but aren't actually so

It's a linguistic innovation, though. An artificial flower might appear real but in fact it is not.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's a linguistic innovation, though. An artificial flower might appear real but in fact it is not.

That's really the point. We can talk about artificial flowers and toy guns and so we might be able to talk about false facts. And as mentioned in the American Heritage Dictionary (referenced earlier), we do talk about false facts. In each of these cases we have something that appears to be one thing (a flower, a gun, or a fact) but actually isn't. But it doesn't then follow that we can dismiss the terms as being contradictory. "Artificial flower" is an acceptable term, as is "toy gun". So why not "false fact"?

Reply to Michael standards, dear fellow. If we don't make a stand, who will?

Quoting Michael

That's really the point. We can talk about artificial flowers and toy guns and so we might be able to talk about false facts. And as mentioned in the American Heritage Dictionary (referenced earlier), we do talk about false facts. In each of these cases we have something that appears to be one thing (a flower, a gun, or a fact) but actually isn't. But it doesn't then follow that we can dismiss the terms as being contradictory. "Artificial flower" is an acceptable term, as is "toy gun". So why not "false fact"?

It's a free country, you can say what you like. But if you talk crap it muddies the waters, and since there is enough muddy water already, that's a waste of time making more. In the end, people who cannot or will not abide by a clear distinction between what is said and what is the case are best disregarded. It drains all meaning from the language.

Quoting Banno

Is there such a thing in English?

There's such a thing in society/culture. And I am talking about something descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Quoting unenlightened

It's a free country, you can say what you like. But if you talk crap it muddies the waters, and since there is enough muddy water already, that's a waste of time making more. In the end, people who cannot or will not abide by a clear distinction between what is said and what is the case are best disregarded. It drains all meaning from the language.

I'm not failing to distinguish between what is said and what is the case. I'm saying that the word "fact" need not only refer to the latter. Sometimes we use the word "fact" to refer to a true statement, sometimes we use the word "fact" to refer to the thing that a true statement describes, and sometimes we use the term "false fact" to refer to a thing that appears to be (or is treated as) a true statement but actually isn't (à la "artificial flower" referring to a thing that appears to be a flower but actually isn't).

Reply to Banno Just the facts please. Unfortunately, there are no such things. It is literally a figment of ones imagination. The desire to place weight into a belief. Such "facts" are most often used by political parties, such as unemployment was 4.8% under Obama. An excellent example of a false fact.

Quoting Rich

Just the facts please. Unfortunately, there are no such things. It is literally a figment of ones imagination. The desire to place weight into a belief. Such "facts" are most often used by political parties, such as unemployment was 4.8% under Obama. An excellent example of a false fact.

If that figure is a false fact then surely there's a true fact, i.e. the actual unemployment rate?

Reply to Michael

Sure there are facts and false facts. These are words and phrases that are assigned to different beliefs in order to elevate the beliefs to something more weighty than a belief. But at the end they are all the same. In school, they teach "facts". That is how facts are formed. In newspapers they report "facts". Government creates "facts" for schools to teach and newspapers to report.

Facts are in the mind of the beholder based upon what they believe to be facts. People form impressions of facts. You may believe a fact is a state of being. That is a belief. An impression in your mind.

Quoting Rich

Sure there are. The words are just attributes given to different beliefs in order to elevate the beliefs to something more weighty than a belief. But at the end they are all the same. In school, they teach "facts". That is how facts are formed. In newspapers they report "facts". Government creates "facts" for schools to teach and newspapers to report.

Facts are in the mind of the beholder based upon what they believe to be facts. People form impressions of facts. You may believe a fact is a state of being. That is a belief. An impression in your mind.

But the point is that some of these beliefs are true. There are true facts (which you admit with your first sentence). So when you say "Unfortunately, there are no such things [as facts]", you're wrong.

Reply to Michael

Something is true if someone believes it to be true - subject to constant change.

In school we are taught certain beliefs are true and so arises a general agreement in a population that something is a fact. But this fact may not hold the status of fact in a different population.

Liberals have their share of facts and conservatives have their share of facts. Everyone assigning different weights to different beliefs. It is entirely relevant to the field of philosophy to understand how facts are created in the individual mind. The psychology of the is a very important aspect of philosophy along with the understanding of holographic physics. Together they provide a clear picture of formation and intensity of beliefs or memories.

Quoting Rich

Something is true if someone believes it to be true - subject to constant change.

So if I believe that the unemployment rate was 5% and you believe that the unemployment wasn't 5% then my belief is true (for me?), your belief is true (for you?), and that's it? There isn't some common, independent fact of the matter such that whatever we each believe, the unemployment rate either was or wasn't 5%, and so one of us is wrong (and the other right)?

Reply to Michael There is not. The U.S. government itself has various unemployment figures all concocted in their own way and subject to scrutiny and disagreement. Is a part-time, temporary job a job? Are they equivalent to jobs in the 1960s? So what we have is a general sense of employment being worse or better based upon personal experiences. But we do not have facts.

Quoting Rich

There is not. The U.S. government itself has various unemployment figures all concocted in their own way and subject to scrutiny and disagreement. Is a part-time, temporary job a job? Are they equivalent to jobs in the 1960s? So what we have is a general sense of employment being worse or better based upon personal experiences. But we do not have facts.

By this do you just mean that whether or not someone is unemployed is ambiguous, and so the unemployment rate is ambiguous? Or are you arguing for a stronger metaphysical claim (e.g. the world and the things in it are belief-dependent, and not necessarily shared)?

For example, let's take something unambiguous like the recipient of the 1966 FIFA World Cup. If I believe that it was England and you believe that it was West Germany, are we both correct, or is one of us wrong, irrespective of what we each believe?

Reply to Michael "Artificial flower" refers to things like nylon over wire frames, or molded plastic, or various other materials that are made to resemble flowers. "Toy gun" refers to plastic, metal, rubber, or other materials that are made to resemble guns.

So a "artificial fact" would be what sort of thing made to resemble a fact?

Reply to Michael

In the first instance there is ambiguity because of many factors that go into the general belief system called statistics and the formation of the belief system called the unemployment rate.

In the second instance, the instance of the World Cup, the is much more uniformity in the belief system but there is essentially no difference in how it is formed. It is a matter of intensifying a belief in a population. A variation of this theme would be, Jim Thorpe won the gold medal for the decathlon in the 1912 Olympics. There is more of a controversy around this statement within the population. Facts change as beliefs change.

How are beliefs formed and how do they metamorphose into facts is a very relevant philosophical question and to penetrate this question requires study of psychological memory, group psychology, and very importantly holographic physics, because it is in the latter area of study to we confront very directly the flow of events that create memory and the subsequent formation of beliefs and then facts. It is a continuum

Quoting Michael

Sometimes we use the word "fact" to refer to a true statement,

Sometimes people use the word "velocity" to only refer to speed. Should we use it that way on a board where the intention is to have serious, educated discussions about physics, though?

Reply to Terrapin Station I think that's a bad analogy, because those terms are defined strictly in physics, whereas you couldn't get all philosophers to agree on what a fact is. Thus it is essential to the philosophical enterprise here to pay attention to conventional use, to unearth what "fact" might mean in specific contexts, and to pick and choose between these uses in specific fields of philosophical enquiry relevant to those contexts, e.g., facts vs. truth in epistemology, or facts vs. values in ethics. But even in these restricted domains, of course, there is also a lack of agreement, and so it goes.

Quoting jamalrob

I think that's a bad analogy, because those terms are defined strictly in physics, whereas you couldn't get all philosophers to agree on what a fact is.

Fact is standardly defined not just in philosophy, but in the sciences as well as "state of affairs" and as not the sort of thing that is true or false. The idea that truth value is a property of propositions isn't something controversial in philosophy.

Reply to Terrapin Station The SEP takes the alternatives seriously:

[quote=SEP, Facts]
What might a fact be? Three popular views about the nature of facts can be distinguished:

A fact is just a true truth-bearer,
A fact is just an obtaining state of affairs,
A fact is just a sui generis type of entity in which objects exemplify properties or stand in relations.
[/quote]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts

Reply to jamalrob

Kevin Mulligan, you mean.

That doesn't change that fact is standardly defined not just in philosophy, but in the sciences as well as "state of affairs" and as not the sort of thing that is true or false. The idea that truth value is a property of propositions isn't something controversial in philosophy.

Of course, if all you know about the issue is what Kevin Mulligan writes in an SEP entry, then that would explain the problem.

Reply to Question I think of facts as hypotheses. I believe a fact is a hypothesis that has a significant amount of data to support it and insufficient data has yet been found to support the null hypothesis (a hypothesis conflicting with the original hypothesis. BUT then this raises a whole host of other considerations - who did the research for the "fact"? how was it done? what was their paradigm? is the data valid and reliable? AND has someone else found equally valid, reliable, and sufficient data to support a conflicting "fact"? What then? And what if none of the researchers (even if you combined them all together) have knowledge of all of the variables affecting any of the hypotheses?

Reply to Rich
So if a stone weighs x amount.
A person can dispute this as a fact and claim that it actually weighs y amount?

Because facts are just what you have been taught or happen to believe?

Reply to Terrapin Station
His bibliography makes him more credible than you.

Quoting m-theory

His bibliography makes him more credible than you.

If you'd gone to school for philosophy his bibliography wouldn't matter--you'd be familiar with what fact refers to on the standard view.

Reply to Terrapin Station
Simply insisting that you were taught that it was the standard view is not very convincing either.
Something like a poll among professionals should be cited to substantiate your claim.

Reply to m-theory

I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's more amusing that you don't know.

Reply to Terrapin Station
It is amusing to me that you have gone to school and regard the matter as settled.
Rarely is that the case in philosophy.

Quoting m-theory

It is amusing that you have gone to school and regard the matter as settled.
Rarely is that the case in philosophy.

As if you have a knowledge base for that claim, lol. Philosophy isn't the same thing as people talking about philosophy on message boards.

Reply to Terrapin Station
If you want to claim that your view is the standard view, there should be some evidence that substantiates that claim.
Simply insisting that you were taught as much does not substantiate your claim.

Reply to Wosret

Yes, I think the intelligibility of any thought about the world, or any enquiry about anything at all, is thoroughly dependent on the ability of propositions to correspond, or fail to correspond, to actualities.

Quoting m-theory

If you want to claim that your view is the standard view, there should be some evidence that substantiates that claim.
Simply insisting that you were taught as much does not substantiate your claim.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's more amusing to me that you don't know.

Reply to Terrapin Station
You are claiming it is a standard view, but you can't substantiate that, and you believe that is amusing?
Ok.

Quoting m-theory

You are claiming it is a standard view, but you can't substantiate that, and you believe that is amusing?

Yeah, that's what I believe is amusing. There's another fine display of your skills with logic.

Reply to Terrapin Station
That is what is going on here.
You are claiming something you can't substantiate and then suggesting that it is funny when I point that out.

Still thinking that there are two (or more) kinds of facts.

1) Our immediate perception of reality which is constantly changing
2) Habitual facts, facts that seem to stick around like the fact that when I push on the light switch the light comes on. This kind of fact is abased on a cultural understanding of how things works. Many of these actions, "I turn on the light" are automatic, they don't typically require any judgement (except when the switch doesn't work) they have become ingrained in us.

I think the perceptual fact that 'the cat is on the mat' is neither true nor false. The cat just is on the mat. But this fact could also be the answer to a question, where is the cat? "The cat is on the mat", which is either a true or false answer.

The 2nd kind of fact, is derived from a series of judgments (which can be true or false) whose conclusion has the same force for us as our perception of the cat on the mat. These conclusions are neither true nor false, they are about the state of affairs that are responsible for our phenomenal experience, their conclusions are ontologically prior to their consideration. Similar to our understanding of the composition of salt.

Quoting m-theory

So if a stone weighs x amount.
A person can dispute this as a fact and claim that it actually weighs y amount?

Because facts are just what you have been taught or happen to believe?

Yes, a "weight of an object" can be disputed in so many different ways that it is one of the easiest ways to refute it is an example of a fact.

Reply to Rich
So you are in a science class and you are supposed to weigh a stone.
The scales says one thing.
But that does not matter, the weight of the stone is what ever you want it to be despite what the scale says?

The cat is on the mat is most certainly not a fact. It is just an observation that has since passed and there is a very distinct possibility that that observation is no longer valid.

Reply to m-theory

Since I was in a measurement class in high school, I can tell you that we had high precision devices, all of which had tolerance levels, and students would always get different results. Measurements of type are subject to differences due to time, place, measurement device, and observer. Measurements are one of the worse examples of facts.

Reply to Rich
You are speaking to accuracy of facts then.
The degree which the results vary between students in your example would be within a particular tolerance.
It would still be a fact that the weight of the stone would be what is measured by a device not decided upon by the students whims.

Reply to m-theory

I don't know what the fact is? That the student used a device to weigh something?

Presumably true, but I can tell you in my class students cheated and didn't use a device.

What you are referring to are not facts but rather are observations and utterances which can always be subject to question. If that is all that facts are then I'll just reiterate that facts are just shared beliefs within a given population. If you believe that measurements are facts and there are others who believe that, then you would all agree that they are facts. I would disagree.

Quoting Heather Smith

I think of facts as hypotheses.

I think hypotheses need to be supported by facts. An hypothesis needs to be able to account for the facts, and if it is contradicted by the facts, then it needs to be changed or abandoned. But facts themselves don't constitute hypotheses.

Quoting Rich

Facts are in the mind of the beholder based upon what they believe to be facts. People form impressions of facts. You may believe a fact is a state of being. That is a belief. An impression in your mind.

I can see your point, and I think it's not without merit, but ultimately this is relativism, which undermines the distinction between facts and opinions, as per Protagoras 'man is the measure of all things'.

Reply to Wayfarer In my analysis of the way things are, I have found that what we have is not necessarily relativism but rather a constant interaction between the personal (call it the holographic reference wave) and the holographic universe of events. Viewing concrete reality in this way provides a deeper understanding of the ways of the universe and a line inquiry well worth pursuing.

What we call facts are nothing more than a memory of some beliefs (it has all passed and therefore subject to have changed) which has been reinforced by a population with similar memories or beliefs (or other the of information such as a photograph), all of which is subject to re-examination and change. It is concrete and real - it is our memory - but it is also constantly changing because all of it is some passed event in memory.

It should be noted that no branch of science provides facts. Science provides measurements (observations) and predictions, that are approximations of some past or potential future event, that fall within necessary tolerances for some practical application. These predictions and formulas are reinforced by experiments but are subject to change when they fail in some application. Hence even science is subject to change based upon the same agreement or lack of agreement between observers in the scientific population.

Logic does lose its preeminence in this philosophical approach while the psychology of the mind and a new understanding of the way a holographically universe may operate rises.

Reply to Rich
If I was a student that wanted to cheat in your measurement class I would still have to have some idea of what a device produced as a measurement.
If I did not over hear or see any device I would not very likely cheat successfully simply from guessing.

Your view is that facts are simply "shared beliefs" however without shared observations why should there be any shared beliefs?

Reply to m-theory

Yes, what you are describing is shared beliefs based upon observations of some sort. You observe, the other person observes, you both share observations and/or beliefs, and so it goes. At some point, it may begin to instantiate itself as a fact in a given population but always subject to revisions and change, particularly so everything that is shared or declared as a fact had already passed. Future observations may serve to continue to confirm the belief as a fact or it may begin to revert back to some belief held by a smaller population.

As I view it, it is all a continuum.

Reply to Rich
I disagree.
Facts are discovered by employing a particular method, the scientific method.
If you do not employ that method you are not accessing any facts.

Reply to m-theory And this is where your belief and my belief diverges. I have never found anything in science that is anything more than observation that are almost always subject to dispute and change. Science is satisfied with approximations, with tolerance levels, that can be used for some practical purpose or to solve some question. Not only are scientific ideas only approximations, but frequently on conflict and often simply unmeasurable and unseen.

Science is good for manipulating material objects. By no means are they factual unless facts are mutable in time.

Reply to Rich
I suspect you only say this is your belief.
But when you become seriously ill or injured you go to a hospital because you understand that the method of science is more reliable than alternative methods.

Reply to m-theory

Actually I don't. I generally take care of myself. But medicine is a great example of conflicting modalities, techniques, approaches, theories, etc. Medicine practiced in Europe is nothing like what is practiced in the U.S. Both physicians and patients often hold diverging beliefs and it is not uncommon for physicians to prescribe remedies that are thought to have no positive effects (e.g. children's cough medicine) or will kill patients in large numbers (e.g. opiods). It is for this reason I avoid common medical practices as do many of the people I know. They simply do not believe in the efficacy of standard medical practices as you might.

As I said in a prior post, science is probably one of the worse examples of facts that one might want to use as an example.

Reply to Rich
If you, or a loved one, became seriously ill or injured you would not rely upon the scientific method?

OK.

I don't believe you.
Nobody is that irrational.

Reply to m-theory There is actually a huge population that share my beliefs, you are simply not aware of this because they are a minority in the U.S. However, the U.S spends twice as much per capita on medicine of any developed nation and has the absolutely worse life expectancy. In fact, life expectancy in the U.S. , apparently went down for the first time in decades last year.

But I do not rely on these observations to make my decisions. It is based upon a life time of observation and learning. I credit my excellent health, compared to others that I know, to the manner I practice health. I avoid doctors like the plague.

But my beliefs are not in question. I freely admit that they are my own, though shared in part my many. The question is about facts. Possibly you can describe to me you idea of a fact and how science or medicine provides any? I don't see any, unless as I said earlier, facts are allowed to be mutable.

Reply to Rich
I don't believe you.
I suspect you have visited a hospital and that you did so because you understand the scientific method is the most reliable way to uncover the facts.

Reply to m-theory Now we have an example of something which I know to be true, i.e. I don't go to doctors or hospitals (a fact?) vs. what you don't believe. Would you believe me if I presented evidence? Is the evidence believable? Why isn't my word enough to turn this idea into a fact. And that is the way life works. I have my beliefs (maybe I just forgot every time I visited a doctor), or maybe your belief system doesn't allow you to accept my statement.

This is exactly the way beliefs evolve. Maybe if I said I go to n the doctors every week, (something that doesn't happen) you would accept that as a fact. Life can be odd in that way.? Con artists work on this principle.

Quoting Rich

In my analysis of the way things are, I have found that what we have is not necessarily relativism but rather a constant interaction between the personal (call it the holographic reference wave) and the holographic universe of events

Well, without the holographic references, I *agree* that there is a subjective aspect to what are generally understood as 'facts', but you're going to far to deny that there are facts. That culminates in the kind of thinking you're seeing with the current presidency, where 'facts' are malleable and dependent on someone's 'version of the truth'.

Quoting Rich

It should be noted that no branch of science provides facts

Too much. If you study a science, it equips you to do a lot of stuff you couldn't otherwise do, including create devices like the one you're expressing your views on. It is a fact that certain materials behave certain ways when treated with certain methods, and so on - these facts have been discovered through diligent application of method and observation, and have real consequences.

I think what you're railing against is absolutism or positivism but where you're ending up is undoubtedly relativism:

relativism
?r?l?t?v?z(?)m
noun
the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

Reply to Wayfarer What you are referring to as scientific facts, I am calling observations that can be used to predict the behavior in non-living matter to a certain level of tolerance. In other words, approximations. Weather prediction is one example. Your definition of facts are very malleable and there is lots of wiggle room. Which is fine. It is a fact that tomorrow I will wake up at about 8:00am - maybe. Science in action.

As for Trump, he is simply doing what every other President has done before him, you simply don't like his version but others do. People to like politicians who repeat their own beliefs. It is a matter of taste, nothing more.

Quoting Rich

What you are referring to as scientific facts, I am calling observations that can be used to predict the behavior in non-living matter to a certain level of tolerance. In other words, approximations. Weather prediction is one example.

But you're generalising. Weather prediction is notoriously unreliable, due to the large number of factors involved. There are many sciences that make predictions at far higher levels of certainty.

Quoting Rich

It is a matter of taste, nothing more.

As I said - relativism, pure and simple. But just my opinion, right? You have your opinion, I have mine, that's it. There's nothing to discuss.

Reply to Wayfarer There is always something to discuss, but everyone has their own belief system that is unlikely to change to any great degree. Discussion is more of a presentation of views which people learn from in small gradations. From this discussion on this thread I have learned the very diverse ideas that people hold to be facts and how few examples there are of such facts.

I would say that weather prediction is very representative of most sciences. Physics is more precise, but still quite malleable and full of uncertainty. Why? Because that is the nature of the beast. If facts do exist, they are full of the underlying uncertainty of the universe. This thread underscores and highlights this uncertainty created fundamentally by the mind.

Reply to Rich
I am sorry I should have said I find it improbable that you have not ever visited a hospital.
I did not mean to suggest you were lying but rather that you were employing hyperbole rather than conceding my point.

I am also very skeptical that in a case of serious injury or illness of yourself or a loved one that you would maintain this position that you have now.
You just don't want to concede my point and do not have to because there is no life threatening illness or injury to you or a loved one.
But eventually there will be and I hope you remember my point then.

Quoting m-theory

I am also very skeptical that in a case of serious injury or illness of yourself or a loved one that you would maintain this position that you have now.

I have a view toward "facts" which is very similar to Rich's, but I will go to see doctors when I think it's appropriate. This does not mean that I think the doctor is giving me advice based in fact. I think the doctor is giving me advice based in opinion. Sometimes I have great respect for the doctor's opinion (after all the doctor is well educated), other times not so much (some times a doctor appears disinterested in the particularities of my problem).

I may not flatly deny that there is such a thing as a fact, as Rich seems to, because I know that it is very practical to refer to some things as facts. As with Rich though, I am very skeptical about the way that people throw around the designation of "fact", only to find out later that the facts have changed.

Reply to Michael Sure, "...is true" and '...is a fact" are synonymous. SO 'facts are always true' is synonymous with 'truths are always true'.

Reply to John Seems so.