I can understand your definition of 'fact' and I've acknowledged it accords with one of the common usages, but not with the other. You seem to want to dictate that the other, which makes perfect sense to me, and, I have no doubt, many other people, is somehow wrong or incoherent. — Janus

I can also agree that "a fact is a true statement." And you are right that the term is sometimes used this way in English. My point is simply that this definition does not help identify what is a fact and what is not.

Suppose I've never seen a duck. I read something about ducks in the paper and ask here on TPF: What the hell is a DUCK? Someone answers: "Ducks are Anatidae." The answer is technically correct but it wouldn't help me much. Now if you say: "It's type of bird, living in and near water, with a flat beak" you are helping. Because I can then figure out a duck and maybe even spot one next time I walk along the Tibre.

So I am looking for a definition that would help one differentiate facts from non-facts. We are not omniscient. If facts are to feature in our conversations, then we need to ask ourselves how to spot them.

I can't, because I "both crave and fear certainty". :-)

That was soooo poetic!

I can also agree that "a fact is a true statement." And you are right that the term is sometimes used this way in English. — Olivier5

I also have indicated, as has Banno, the other usage equating facts with actual (as opposed to imaginary or fictional) states of affairs or situations or events or whatever you want to call them.

My point is simply that this definition does not help identify what is a fact and what is not. — Olivier5

So I am looking for a definition that would help one differentiate facts from non-facts. — Olivier5

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. You still haven't attempted to deal with the example I gave of prisoners who are innocent; an example that shows that what is generally held to be fact may not be, even if that fact is never discovered. What kind of definition would be able to distinguish fact from fiction in such a case?

The door is shut. — Banno

How is that an answer to my question?

It can be used as a statement and as a fact.
— Banno

What can? — bongo fury

This is a request for quite ordinary clarification, of which you showed yourself capable for the remainder of that post after "duckrabbits". You know - which words are referring to which things.

Please clarify the reference of "it" in the sentence above, that I'm questioning.

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. — Janus

Voilà.

You still haven't attempted to deal with the example I gave of prisoners who are innocent; an example that shows that what is generally held to be fact may not be, even if that fact is never discovered. What kind of definition would be able to distinguish fact from fiction in such a case? — Janus

I have attempted to deal with it by pointing out that in this example, you imagine a certain state of affairs and declare it such, as true. Eg a guy is sentenced guilty of a crime but he is actually innocent. In doing so, you take the POV of God and ask your reader to adopt it too. What I mean by that is that you KNOW he is innocent even though the court, the police, the media and the public don't know that. So you can safely conclude: "it is a fact that he is innocent" but none of the people inside your scenario could actually say that.

And that is because a fact is a statement known to be true, or accurate enough (ergo based on accurate, replicable or otherwise dependable evidence). It's not just a true statement. It's a well buttressed one.

I also have indicated, as has Banno, the other usage equating facts with actual (as opposed to imaginary or fictional) states of affairs or situations or events or whatever you want to call them. — Janus

That would seem to imply that there could exist facts that are yet unknown to us. Which is different from saying: "we will tomorrow discover (or observe) facts that we have no clue about yet", in the critical sense that it implies the existence of a world in itself, in which there exist facts.

I believe in the existence of a world in itself, can't even imagine how one couldn't. But are there "facts" in that world in itself? I find it hard to even understand the issue here... It seems to me that it is again the POV of God.

Another way to ask the question may be: Is there a useful way for us humans to speak about "facts in themselves"? Is that a useful concept, and if yes, in what sorts of questions?

@Janus I trust this clarifies then, judging from your sudden silence.

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation — Janus

I observed God speaking to me. I could hear them. Now I know they must be behind all this. God is a fact. "Naaaahh", says atheist, "an illusion". ???

I have attempted to deal with it by pointing out that in this example, you imagine a certain state of affairs and declare it such, as true. — Olivier5

I don't see how the stipulation that in this story no one knows that the convict is innocent, is relevant, since the intention was to mirror actual cases just like that. Are you denying there could be cases like that where convicts are innocent? If a convict is actually innocent of a crime is it not a fact that he didn't commit the crime even if no one knows it?

Or another example; take any supposed historical fact; imagine that it didn't actually happen; would it not then be a fact that it didn't happen, even if we have no way of determining that?

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. — Janus


Voilà. — Olivier5

I'm not saying what I think you think I'm saying. I'm talking here about how we determine what we consider to be facts. I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined.

So far, you haven't offered any counterexamples or counterarguments, you just keep repeating the same assertions. Well, I genuinely don't agree with your assertions; because I think there is a valid, an indispensable, distinction between what we take to be the facts and what the facts might actually be.

And that is because a fact is a statement known to be true, or accurate enough (ergo based on accurate, replicable or otherwise dependable evidence). It's not just a true statement. It's a well buttressed one. — Olivier5

I know what you're saying but I don't think it's right. I would say what we take to be a fact is a statement we take ourselves to know to be true; that we take to be well-buttressed; it might still turn out to be wrong. That said, there are general descriptive facts that within the context of human life are unquestionably true. For example that Paris is the capital of France and that humans are usually born with two arms and two legs are facts which cannot be coherently questioned. There are countless numbers of these kinds of facts, but they don't tell us anything that is not self-evident; so they are not particularly important.

So far, you haven't offered any counterexamples or counterarguments, you just keep repeating the same assertions. — Janus

Indeed.

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation.

The trouble here is of course that what counts as a suitable observation is already theoretical - already an interpretation. Observations thus cannot fulfil this role as a foundation to knowledge.

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation.


The trouble here is of course that what counts as a suitable observation is already theoretical - already an interpretation. Observations thus cannot fulfil this role as a foundation to knowledge. — Banno

I agree, what we take to be facts are always fallible. But the logic behind our understanding of factuality is not such that facts are fallible; it is that facts are facts and once a fact always a fact.

Yep.

No is to what one believes. The best we can do is an ought.

And that's were the empiricists and pragmatists fall down.

The trouble here is of course that what counts as a suitable observation is already theoretical - already an interpretation. Observations thus cannot fulfil this role as a foundation to knowledge. — Banno

The trouble here is that you separate theory and observation.

If a convict is actually innocent of a crime is it not a fact that he didn't commit the crime even if no one knows it? — Janus

For one thing, he knows it. For another, the real guilty party knows it. The police most of times would have planted the evidence and would know it. They are the people who could -- in proper English -- say "I know for a fact that he is innocent".

If you use the word 'fact' to speak of 'truth', there's no value added to the word 'fact' as compared to 'truth'. You might as well abandon it and use the word 'truth' instead.

The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. — Janus

Voilà.
— Olivier5

I'm not saying what I think you think I'm saying. I'm talking here about how we determine what we consider to be facts. I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined. — Janus

You ARE saying what I am saying, you are just too stubborn to realize it.

The trouble here is of course that what counts as a suitable observation is already theoretical - already an interpretation. Observations thus cannot fulfil this role as a foundation to knowledge. — Banno

And thus, science cannot possibly succeed...

What a joke!

I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined. — Janus

You haven't addressed the fact that when the innocent and the guilty persons are both dead no one knows the fact of the matter; which remain facts of the matter nonetheless. And you have addressed the problem with your view of what constitutes a fact as it relates to historical fact. On your view there can be no historical fact because there is no way of observing the events in question in order to determine what actually happened.

You ARE saying what I am saying, you are just too stubborn to realize it. — Olivier5

That's a ridiculous claim given your inability to address the difficulties I have raised with your position. I disagree with your view; get over it. If you agree with what I'm saying then repeat after me

I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined. — Janus

And thus, science cannot possibly succeed... — Olivier5

That doesn't follow.

But the logic behind our understanding of factuality is not such that facts are fallible; it is that facts are facts and once a fact always a fact. — Janus

That doesn’t allow for the possibility of something that is thought by everyone to be a fact which subsequently turns out not to be. You’re appealing to a notion of ‘fact’ that transcends the possibility of being wrong, or saying that established facts are incontrovertible, when they often turn out not to be.

Everyone may know what a fact is but I am not sure what everyone thinks a fact is. — Athena

The word 'fact' is often used throughout the English speaking world. Some philosophers believe that nouns like 'fact' have an exact meaning. I'm not sure what could be the exact meaning of fact. :confused:

That doesn’t allow for the possibility of something that is thought by everyone to be a fact which subsequently turns out not to be. You’re appealing to a notion of ‘fact’ that transcends the possibility of being wrong, or saying that established facts are incontrovertible, when they often turn out not to be. — Wayfarer

You have it exactly backwards; it is the position of Olivier5 that carries the burden of not being able to account for being wrong.. I have said that facts are not fallible, but that what we take to be facts is fallible; for Oliver5 there is no distinction between facts and what we take to be facts.. You need to read more closely

for Oliver5 there is no distinction between facts and what we take to be facts — Janus

Spot on.

Differentiating between beliefs and truths is pivotal to acknowledging and correcting error. You'd have to agree with that,

for Oliver5 there is no distinction between facts and what we take to be facts — Janus

@Olivier5 is right. A fact is a fact because our theories make them a fact. I'm not talking about lying, which can be done in every culture.

How else can it be? Observations and theory can't be separated. Pure observation is an illusion. Even the perception of a pure color is problematic. There are no "bundles of perception" which we can arbitralily select in the creative process, as Einstein claims.

A fact is a fact because our theories make them a fact. — Thunderballs

I think you're right. It's the public who decide what a "facts" is, not armchair philosophers.

You haven't addressed the fact that when the innocent and the guilty persons are both dead no one knows the fact of the matter; which remain facts of the matter nonetheless. And you have addressed the problem with your view of what constitutes a fact as it relates to historical fact. On your view there can be no historical fact because there is no way of observing the events in question in order to determine what actually happened. — Janus

A point of form: that I haven't address points that you haven't made yet should come as ni surprise. Make your points first, and then I will try and address them.

Historical facts are accurate observations done and recorded in the past, that's all. There usually is a way to observe the record.

If the people in the known of a case are all dead and left no record whatsoever, it is improper or at any rate not useful to speak of the facts of the mater.

I disagree with your view; get over it. — Janus

Rather, you agree with my view; get over it. :-)

You did not address my objection that if truth and fact mean exactly the same thing, why have two words instead of one?

I think you're right. It's the public who decide what a "facts" is, not armchair philosophers. — Wheatley

The public merely observes. Swallowing everything that is served swallow-ready, without chewing, unconsciously digesting only. Who serves?

The public merely observes. — Thunderballs

Some even participate.

Some even participate. — Wheatley

That's how true theatre should be.

We're just sheeple.

I would say docile, compliant, or easily influenced. Sheeple is an insult to sheep.

docile, compliant — Thunderballs

Not me! :cool:

Not me! — Wheatley

I had the impression already! :smile: