I think of facts as hypotheses. — Heather Smith

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.

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

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 — Rich

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'.

It should be noted that no branch of science provides facts — Rich

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
ˈrɛlətɪvɪz(ə)m
noun
the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.

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.

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. — Rich

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.

It is a matter of taste, nothing more. — Rich

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.

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.

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.

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. — m-theory

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.

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

Seems so.