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.

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. — Rich

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?

"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?

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

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

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?

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.

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. — jamalrob

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.

The SEP takes the alternatives seriously:

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. — SEP, Facts

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

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.

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?

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?

His bibliography makes him more credible than you.

His bibliography makes him more credible than you. — m-theory

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. — m-theory

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

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

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

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

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.

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? — m-theory

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.