A fact is a statement that is true.

It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno

A statement that corresponds to the state of affairs would be a fact?

...corresponds... — Cheshire

That word doesn't just carry baggage; it comes with its own shipping container.

So it's not a phrasing I would choose.

Didn't realize it was that involved. Is it the whole separating people from the world thing again?

The Correspondence Theory of Truth

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in.

No, I'm not! Oops... — BrotherB

Hoe gaat het? Tijd niet gezien. Alles goed?

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in. — Banno

I took it as necessarily vague. There's a limit to the precision a concept that addresses the everything of everything can reasonably achieve. Basically, this is some way because that is some way.

Ik hep niks to klagen - COVID is een probleem voor ons allemaal. :death:

Het is hier half elf - lunch in een uurtje. Let's talk English or we might get in trouble. I suspect you may be on borrowed time. :wink:

Vague, or general?

A T-sentence can be applied to any statement, and so is more general than correspondence. It has the advantage of being undeniable. Correspondence comes with its own difficulties. SO I'll go with T-sentences.

I suspect you may be on borrowed time — Tom Storm

Time is money. Is this not correct? And both are no object. Only those who treat them as such are in said predicament.

Time is money. Is this not correct? And both are no object. Only those who treat them as such are in said predicament. — Outlander

Is that a fact?

Is that a question?

Just kidding. As everything, beyond repeatable and consistent observation, which even then is mere circumstance, suggests.. perhaps.

If it can not be validated how can it be an accepted fact? — Athena

One observation can be validated by another.

↪Cheshire The Correspondence Theory of Truth

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in. — Banno

There is simply no alternative.

You mean as in it is a fact that you made an accurate observation (or not)? — Janus

I mean that facts are accurate observations. This definition purposefully excludes theories, which aren't facts because they are always somewhat hypothetical.

I mean that facts are accurate observations. This definition purposefully excludes theories, which aren't facts because they are always somewhat hypothetical. — Olivier5

I'm not sure what you mean, Olivier. If I accurately observed that it was raining where I happened to be at some specific time, the fact that it was raining at that time and place does not depend on my having observed it. Of course it is also a fact that I observed it, but that is another matter it seems to me.

the fact that it was raining at that time and place does not depend on my having observed it. Of course it is also a fact that I observed it, but that is another matter it seems to me. — Janus

If you had not observed that rain, and nobody else did, would it still be a fact that it rained? A fact is not just supposed to be true, it is known to be true, accepted as truth by all reasonable people. And to be accepted as true it must be based on evidence.

My bad. Clicked the wrong reply button. My apologies. — Banno

No problem Banno, it's easy to do.

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in. — Banno

I think we all know what it consists in, and it is not so much a theory as it is an account or description of an understanding which is basic and ineliminable. As Aristotle put it: "To say of what is that it is not, and of what is not that it is, is falsehood, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not is truth".

The logic of this is also captured by the T-sentence: ''Snow is white' is true iff snow is white'. The logic in both of these formulations is the correspondence of statement with actuality.

If you had not observed that rain, and nobody else did, would it still be a fact that it rained? A fact is not just supposed to be true, it is known to be true, accepted as truth by all reasonable people. And to be accepted as true it must be based on evidence. — Olivier5

I guess we don't understand what facts consist in in the same way then. For me, for example, that there is another planet in our galaxy with humanoid creatures living on it is either a fact or it is not, regardless of whether we can discover the truth of the matter.

If we have different definitions of the term 'fact' what would determine who is right? I would say the only reasonable answer to that would be common usage, and from what I have observed common usage is on my side.

The other point here is that that which is accepted as truth by all people based on evidence may sometimes nonetheless turn out not to be true.

For me, for example, that there is another planet in our galaxy with humanoid creatures living on it is either a fact or it is not, regardless of whether we can discover the truth of the matter. — Janus

It's a fact. Somewhere in the Milky Way there are creatures with hands, arms, feet, legs, a digestion system, and a brain. Somewhere in spactime, on the worldline of our galaxy. Humanoid life is not bound to Earth. If we could travel to an average star (traveling at the speed of light we could get there in the wink of an eye though accelerating and decellerating would make our clocks lag behind the clocks on Earth). The chance of meeting otherworldly lifeforms would be high. Humanoids might not yet be present or not present anymore. They span a relatively very short time in creature evolution, an evolution which is inevitable on a rotating planet around a star at the right distance. The universe is full of life. To find the chance of finding life you just have to calculate the chance the planet has the right mass and distance to its star. There have been found Earth-like exoplanets. We have looked at life when observing them (transitions).

Yes... except that the "correspondence" in a T-sentence is about as well-defined as is possible: it's truth-functional.

I'm with you. A fact can be unknown and not believed by anyone.

This is the only way in which we can account for error. We thought it was a fact, but we turned out we were wrong. On Olivier5's account, a statements that is believed by all, accurately measured, incorporated into theory, used to generate novelty, would count as a fact.

But all that could occur, and yet the statement turn out to be wrong.

A statement is only ever a fact if it is true. And further, that's all there is to a statement's being a fact.

It's like what Augustine purportedly said about time (roughly, from memory): " When I think about time I'm sure I understand what it is, but when asked to explain I find that I cannot". Something like that anyway.

It seems to me that the T-sentence is a "Claytons" definition; it's the definition you're having when you're not having a definition. It's well hidden beneath a ton of clay. :wink:

Yes :up:

A statement is only ever a fact if it is true. And further, that's all there is to a statement's being a fact. — Banno

Feels circular. When is something a fact? When it's true. When is something true? When it's a fact.

I think the T-sentence is the best that can be done. Truth is so very fundamental to language that there is nothing that can be said about it, no capacity to set out what truth is in terms of other notions. This should not be at all surprising, since any such theory would have to be subject to itself. Presenting a true statement is what we do with language at a very basic level.

Feels circular. When is something a fact? When it's true. When is something true? When it's a fact. — Gobuddygo

You're perhaps beginning to see it. Being a fact is the same as being true.

You're perhaps beginning to see it. Being a fact is the same as being true. — Banno

But when it's true?

There is simply no alternative. — Olivier5

Yeah, there is - redundancy.

Yeah, I agree,

Being a fact is the same as being true. — Banno

Right, this can be easily shown by word substitution. For any sentence "it is true that" we can substitute " it is a fact that" without any change of meaning, it seems.

But when it's true? — Gobuddygo

What?