My preoccupation is how do we determine a fact is a true statement? — Tom Storm

My approach not to confuse the two terms - because that leads to confusion. Please see my reply to Janus just above. That is, generally accepted seems about the best that can be done, although to be sure in some of the sciences that's a bar high enough to approach certainty. While at the same time remembering that criteria do not just support and demonstrate, but also at a fundamental level establish.

First, a fact is a true statement by definition. — Banno

That's indeed all there is to it.

First, a fact is a true statement by definition. There are no facts that are not true. SO your preoccupation is ill-formed.

Second, the word "determine" is misplaced, since what you are asking, presumably, is when one ought believe; and that's not determinate. You can believe whatever you like. That doesn't make it true. That is, you are asking a normative question but looking for an epistemological answer.

Third, it would be very odd if there were a rule that set out when a statement s true in every case.

This thread is so long because you and a few others havn't understood the answer. — Banno

Excellent. Thank you. I'm not good at this stuff.

First, a fact is a true statement by definition. — Banno

This from a man utterly dismissive of definition when it suits his purpose. Meh, indeed!

ANd keep in mind the other uses, some of which are listed here:

The usage as an act is found in Jane Ausitn, "...gracious in fact if not in word"; and Milton, Paradise Lost, "He who most excels in fact of arms". But as something that really occurred, in Thirlwall, "...one fact destroys this fiction". The first occurrence of fact as truth or reality is dated at 1581, well pre-dating your supposition that it derives from17th century empiricism. (SOED) (Edit: on checking the OED, the date is "1632 J. Hayward tr. Biondi's Eromena 21 They resolved that the Admirall should goe disguised‥to assure himselfe of the fact." It seems the point is one of contention). — Banno

Excellent. Thank you. I'm not good at this stuff. — Tom Storm

Beware following Banno too far. He's lightfooted around quicksand, and your bad if you're caught!

Notice I re-wrote the third point. T-sentence does give a general cade for truth; at the expense of redundancy.

This from a man utterly dismissive of definition when it suits his purpose. Meh, indeed! — tim wood

If there is an issue with what I have said, set it out.

You apparently want to ask when we should believe this or that statement. I don't see any reason there should be a general case here; but moreover, the examples presented turn out to have profound difficulties.

By changing the focus form truth to belief we are able to explain error and differences of opinion.

In what sense is it actual? What even do you mean by actual? Do you mean what's happening now? — tim wood

There have been actual events in the past. They are not actual now, obviously. So what?

Further, I did not ask what the usages of "fact" were, instead I asked what a fact is - you can go back and see. — tim wood

Usages are what tell you what a fact is (conceived to be).

In regard of this, you might have said that a fact appears to be a kind of descriptive proposition that says something about something that is generally accepted as accurate wrt to appropriate criteria, and that being accepted as a fact, was accorded value and currency non-facts neither get nor have. Or something like. This if you had thought about it at all.

You seem to be speaking about what is generally accepted as fact. What is generally accepted as fact need not be fact. What is generally accepted as fact may be reasonable to believe, but that is a different matter. I have thought about it, but obviously not in the strange way you seem to have.

Think on this: how do you know that the Bishop moves diagonally? What observation supports this?

Do you really think that the Bishop moves diagonally because that's the only movement you observe? Did you conclude that there is only a very high probability of the Bishop moving diagonally, and sometimes it moves otherwise?

Game rules.

What is generally accepted as fact need not be fact. — Janus

Yes!

Indeed. It's not that the Bishop can only move diagonally, but that doing otherwise is not playing chess.

So many facts are not decided empirically.

Some twit will try to argue that one learns the rules by observation.

Learning to play Chess is learning to participate in an activity, it is choosing to follow a set of rules within a community. Here's an example of a fact that is not empirically determined.

Add this to the criticism discussed earlier, that all observations are theory-laden.

Our empiricist and pragmatist friends - @Tom Storm, @Olivier5 - have been misled by considering only a limited number of examples of the use of fact. They have the answer and look only to examples that support heir contentions.

It would be more interesting to consider the outliers, as @Srap Tasmaner, @Janus and a few others started to do in the thread on A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs ages ago.

A discussion along those lines might be more help to @Athena, too, in dealing with her faithful nephew. I'm confident it woudl be more productive than scientistic fairy-tails.

Our empiricist and pragmatist friends have been misled by considering only a limited number of examples of the use of fact. — Banno

Yes. Part of the challenge with this word 'fact' is that 'facts' are often conceptualized as a kind of ammunition to be used against those who hold to different 'facts'. There are fact wars. Facts have totemic power. We've come to see facts in specific and perhaps limited terms as you are suggesting. The chess example being a good case.

Part of the challenge with this word 'fact' is that 'facts' are often conceptualized as a kind of ammunition to be used against those who hold to different 'facts'. — Tom Storm

Yep; that's exactly why empiricism tries to militarise the term, as can be seen in this thread. @Athena may have. a desire to take advantage of that process in her discussions with her nephew. Denying a distinction between belief and truth might look like a good move, but it plays into the hands of those who would peddle bullshit; identifying bullshit relies on identifying a difference between what is true and what someone believes.

That's useful. On a tangent - is it your understanding of phenomenology that the notion of 'what is true' is understood as an intersubjective understanding or belief rather than 'true' in the way we have been exploring here?

identifying bullshit relies on identifying a difference between what is true and what someone believes. — Banno

That's identifying falsehood.

I'd lean toward taking bullshit as speaking without warrant, and I don't need truth to judge that.

is it your understanding of phenomenology that the notion of 'what is true' is understood as an intersubjective understanding... — Tom Storm

I'm not the one to answer this - perhaps @Wayfarer? Interesting that he hasn't chimed in - or if he did I missed it.

I'm not in favour of the term "intersubjective". I get an image of two homunculi sitting watching screens that display the outside world, and sending messages to each other on a teletype, neither confident that there is anything outside their small cell.

That is, it's a misleading term, setting up or deriving from a false picture.

Rather what we say and do are embedded in the world and in a community, both of which provide limits. Those limits are shared, as opposed to intersubjective.

I doubt that helps much.

I'd lean toward taking bullshit as speaking without warrant, and I don't need truth to judge that. — Srap Tasmaner

I meant bullshit as in saying what suits one's purpose - not speaking without warrant so much as speaking without regard for the truth. After Frankfurt.

I doubt that helps much. — Banno

That did help. I'm trying to navigate these tricky or is that pesky (?) realms of philosophy.

Cheers - TS

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

If there is an issue with what I have said, set it out. — Banno

I agree that a fact is a statement. You aver it's a true statement but you have no standard for truth.

"It is also a state of affairs set out by a true statement." A state of affairs is a fact? Eh? What does that even mean? As I noted above to Janus, what do you suppose a state of affairs exactly is? Is it now? Because by the time you report on it, it's no longer now but is instead then. Or in short, your account is incoherent. So you appeal to usage and definition. But those are not what a fact is, those are usage and definition. And informally this all usually works and the world's work usually gets done. Except when the attempt is made to understand a fact as true. And this confounds truth with the very likely, or accepted as such, and so forth - but that is not true, nor truth. They are not the same thing.

If you want a proposition about an event to be true, exhibit one.

you have no standard for truth. — tim wood

Yeah I do. The T-sentence. Statement mentioned on the left, state of affairs, fact, statement used, on the right.

You are pretending there is more, when there isn't.

I agree that a fact is a statement. You aver it's a true statement but you have no standard for truth. — tim wood

So presumably you are happy to call untrue statements facts.

I don't see any progress being made in your reply. It doesn't address the very specific criticisms provided above. It doesn't set out identifiable issues with what I have said.

So presumably you are happy to call untrue statements facts. — Banno

Don't be silly; it doesn't look good on you. When you can exhibit a true proposition about an event, then you can predicate truth of facts. Until then, it's a false step.

Propositions in logic may well be true - or false. But then, they're not facts.

It doesn't set out identifiable issues with what I have said. — Banno

Are you kidding? You say facts are true. I say, how do you know? And you dismiss it.

Nothing to be done here. Take this:

When you can exhibit a true proposition about an event... — tim wood

What to do with it? Consider:

...seeing the cat on the mat is an event, not a fact... — tim wood

...so whatever the "event"you are asking for, you are both accusing me of having presented it instead of a fact, and then demanded I present what you say I already presented....

You say facts are true. I say, how do you know? And you dismiss it. — tim wood

That's so obtuse. I and others have show you that facts may not be known. Can you provide an example of a fact that is not true?

It's weird. By all means, try again to articulate whatever it is you are saying, but until then there's nothing to be done.

You still haven't answered when a fact is true. — Nosferatu

Yes, I have. Several times.

First, your question is ill-formed. Facts are always true.

Second, if what you are asking is when is a statement true, then perhaps you are asking when a statement ought be believed. There is no general answer to that question.

Oh, it's you. Fuck off, sockpuppet.

Facts are always true. — Banno

This is a fact

Fuck off, sockpuppet — Banno

I love fucking off my sock puppets

perhaps you are asking when a statement ought be believed. There is no general answer to that question. — Banno

I think being under the threat of great violence is the best time to believe something

I think the threat of great violence is the bedt time tp believe something — Merkwurdichliebe

Strangelove to the rescue!