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-)

You are still confusing truth and belief.

Someone else from a different angle may say differently. — Rich

she is wrong.

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.

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.

contradictory facts — Rich

An oxymoron.

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. — Banno

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.

— Rich

An oxymoron. — Banno

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Both true and untrue statements obtain — Wosret

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.

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?

Yes I do agree with that.

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.

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

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.

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 — Michael

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

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

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"?

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

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"? — Michael

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.

Is there such a thing in English? — Banno

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

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. — unenlightened

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).

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.

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. — Rich

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

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.

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. — Rich

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.

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.

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

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)?