What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?

BrianW

To me, a fact is a record of events that actually happened. It is an experiential record. And, because of this, it is dependent on perspective for context.

From google, I get definitions such as:

Here, on TPF, I've occasionally seen the argument that science doesn't give facts because, perhaps, it does not give incontrovertible truth, or something to that tune. However, from such a perspective, we can say that nothing from humans can give incontrovertible truth on account of our fallibility.

However, science, good science, as well as good logic or reasoning, can give a record of events or generate information which is reproducible, functional and/or relatable within a stated context or perspective.

So, why do we sometimes have an issue with the use of the word 'fact'? Because most often we want to imply that a fact is truth. Or, that a fact is absolute. It is not. However, in the context or perspective of the human experiences usually quoted, the facts are exceedingly dependable and, sometimes, 'perfect' (very consistent), within a particular dynamic. For example, the action of gravity as we've worked out, is very consistent, in terms of the common experiences we engage in. However, there's more to gravity, even on earth's surface, than our experiences (check categories such as gravity anomalies).

So, of what use are facts?

Another pertinent consideration is the significance of facts with respect to knowledge. For me, fundamentally, knowledge is information given utility. So, it is more correct, especially for me, to think that most of us know of facts than we know facts. This just means that we have more of information about 'stuff' than what is useful about the 'stuff' or how best we can utilise that information.

This is just my perspective. What's yours?

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Douglas Alan

There is, of course, an entire entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this question. And if you read it, you will quickly find that you are unlikely to get a group of random philosophers to come to a consensus on the matter.

I'll take it upon myself to cast the deciding vote then: A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less.

|>ouglas

BrianW

A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less. — Douglas Alan

This has become interesting. Can a proposition be true? I mean in the sense that, if it is true, is it still a proposition?

And what is your perspective of facts with respect to truth when the conditions which determine them change? That is, do facts change?

BrianW

(Imo) you're exactly right. I'll add a refinement that likely you had in mind but that I'll just make more explicit. Truth and fact are different animals. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon is a fact. 2+3=5 is true. — tim wood

Thanks for this. I take it to mean something like, "truth is enduring, that is, it will always be relevant, while a fact is relative.

Douglas Alan

↪BrianW

This has become interesting. Can a proposition be true? I mean in the sense that, if it is true, is it still a proposition? — BrianW

I have no idea what you are talking about! I have a degree in Philosophy and propositions are usually considered to be the primary bearers of truth-value.

|>ouglas

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

aletheist

A fact is a true proposition. — Douglas Alan

I propose instead: A fact is the state of things that is signified by a true proposition.

Can a proposition be true? — BrianW

A proposition is traditionally defined as a sign that can be true or false, in contrast to a term or an argument.

Douglas Alan

↪tim wood

but yours seems to me ignorance preening and congratulating itself for having said what is a piece of stupidity.

I have an SB in Philosophy from MIT and this is what I was taught the word "fact" means.

Certainly I can and did go look at the Stanford Encylopedia and see for myself that there are a myriad of different opinions on how the word "fact" should be used. One of these opinions documented in the aforementioned encyclopedia is precisely what I have said I was taught.

If anyone thinks that a debate here is going to somehow be more enlightening than what they will find in that encyclopedia entry, they are sorely deluding themselves.

Personally, I prefer the meaning that I was taught. I find it clear, concise, and useful, and no one at MIT ever batted an eye when the word "fact" was used in this manner.

|>ouglas

P.S. As for the specific content of your offensive statement, you can go frak yourself, kind sir.

Douglas Alan

↪aletheist

I propose instead: A fact is the state of things that is signified by a true proposition.

I would not object to that usage of the word "fact". Though I think that it can be used either way unproblematically.

|>ouglas

aletheist

I would not object to that usage of the word "fact". Though I think that it can be used either way unproblematically. — Douglas Alan

Understood, and people do routinely use "fact" as a synonym for "true proposition." I just find it helpful to maintain a careful distinction between a true proposition and the state of things that it represents for an interpreter thereof by reserving "fact" for the latter.

Douglas Alan

I just find it helpful to maintain a careful distinction between a true proposition and the state of things that it represents for an interpreter thereof by reserving "fact" for the latter. — aletheist

Fair enough!

|>ouglas

BrianW

Um, no. Providing you understand the terms, you can always demonstrate that 2+3=5. Facts you can never demonstrate. You can exhibit supporting documentation, or make probabilistic arguments, but never more than that. — tim wood

I've never thought of truths and facts in this way before. At first glance I seem to want to protest but there is a simplicity to the explanation that makes me think it might be right. I'll have to think on this for a long while before I can say anything pertinent about it. Thanks for the perspective.

christian2017

(Imo) you're exactly right. I'll add a refinement that likely you had in mind but that I'll just make more explicit. Truth and fact are different animals. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon is a fact. 2+3=5 is true. — tim wood

2+3=5 is also a fact. Can you explain why it is not? This argument of yours seems superfluous.

christian2017

There is, of course, an entire entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this question. And if you read it, you will quickly find that you are unlikely to get a group of random philosophers to come to a consensus on the matter.

I'll take it upon myself to cast the deciding vote then: A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less.

|>ouglas — Douglas Alan

Correct!

christian2017

Really? How? Why? Under what understanding of the meanings of the terms? I confess to a lack of patient understanding myself, but yours seems to me ignorance preening and congratulating itself for having said what is a piece of stupidity. In your defense I observe that stupid gets a lot of the world's work done, but not this, here. — tim wood

The problem is we are dealing with semantics. Like Douglas originally said we could be at this for another 10 pages. Feel free to message me on what the consensus is. Sometimes beating a dead horse actually does make sense and in other cases it does not make sense to beat a dead horse. Considering this an online forum where people come here so that they consume less alcohol instead of a 30 pack every night, beating a dead horse over and over again in this case would make complete sense.

BrianW

↪Douglas Alan

↪aletheist

I seem to have a problem with a proposition being characterized as true or false because, by my understanding, a proposition is not definitive. Its values of truth and falsity are potential. To me, if the potentiality is verified, then it becomes an axiom.

I understand a proposition to be an attempt to express meaning or value, but whether or not it is true or false is beyond the proposition itself. By this I mean that, the proposition has to be examined in relation to something like evidence (the object/subject, the significance of which, the proposition is attempting to express) so as to determine whether its value is true or false. And, whether the evidence is itself a fact or truth is again dependent on another degree of relation, viz, meaning.

Is my explanation sound?

aletheist

I seem to have a problem with a proposition being characterized as true or false because, by my understanding, a proposition is not definitive. Its values of truth and falsity are potential. To me, if the potentiality is verified, then it becomes an axiom ... Is my explanation sound? — BrianW

No, that is not how "proposition" and "axiom" are typically defined in logic and philosophy. There are all kinds of true propositions, only a few of which are considered to be axioms. "My PF screen name is aletheist" is a true proposition, but it is certainly not an axiom.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Douglas Alan

I seem to have a problem with a proposition being characterized as true or false because, by my understanding, a proposition is not definitive — BrianW

The term "proposition", as conventionally used in Philosophy, just means a sentence that is attempting to assert something. This assertion might be true or it might be false, or it might not have a truth value.

E.g., here are some propositions:

(1) All horses are animals.
(2) All horses are brown.
(3) No three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2.
(4) Chairs are good.

#1 is true by definition.
#2 is false, empirically.
#3 is true because it can be proved so mathematically.
#4 probably has no truth value, since it expresses a value judgement rather than a way the world might or might not be.

When I said that a proposition is a sentence above, that was a lie, however. Or rather an over-simplification. A proposition is an abstraction of such a sentence, such that the sentence can be rephrased or expressed in a different language and still express the same proposition as long as the rephrasing or translation maintains the same meaning.

|>ouglas

christian2017

More closely, can you not see a difference between 2+3=5 and "President Franklin Pierce was born in New Hampshire? — tim wood

2 has a definition, 3 has a definition, 5 has a defintion, ..... Franklin Pierce has a concise (simplified) definition, born has a definition, New Hampshire has a simplified definition. To a large degree the two things are both mathematical and also at the same time lingual. Am i missing something?

The concise definition of 5 is 1+4. The defintion of 4 is 3 + 1. The definition of 2 is 1+1. 3 + 1 +1 = 5 by jumping to the conclusion just a little (just a little), 3 + 2 = 5

BrianW

↪aletheist

↪Douglas Alan

Thanks. It's illuminating.

Douglas Alan

More closely, can you not see a difference between 2+3=5 and "President Franklin Pierce was born in New Hampshire? — tim wood

The difference is that one of those is a necessary fact and the other is a contingent fact. They are, however, both facts.

|>ouglas

Douglas Alan

Frivolity aside, you said categorically that a fact is a true proposition. — tim wood

For someone who likes to rail so much about stupidity, you shouldn't act so stupidly.

You have quoted me out of context. In context, I provided the requisite caveats. I'll paste them here to refresh your addled memory:

There is, of course, an entire entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this question. And if you read it, you will quickly find that you are unlikely to get a group of random philosophers to come to a consensus on the matter.

I'll take it upon myself to cast the deciding vote then

|>ouglas

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

christian2017

Um, no. Providing you understand the terms, you can always demonstrate that 2+3=5. Facts you can never demonstrate. You can exhibit supporting documentation, or make probabilistic arguments, but never more than that. To be sure, many facts are called "true" and accepted as such, but they aren't; "true" in this case meaning, pretty much, generally accepted and that bets can be settled in accordance with. — tim wood

Lets say we have a fact or truth that is too hard for an idiot like me to understand, no matter how well you explain it, it still won't be a truth or a fact to me. Like you said stupidity atleast to some degree is prevalent in multiple societies, some more than others.

christian2017

Not mathematical, except in some poetical sense that doesn't work here, where clarity is what we're after. What I think you're missing is that you cannot demonstrate that FP was a president from NH. You can present evidence that argues in favour of and supports that conclusion, and sensible people will acknowledge it. The math, on the other hand, is demonstrable, is rigorously provable. One is provisional, even tentative, and granted on the basis of evidence presented, the other is complete in itself and compulsive. — tim wood

rigourous is the word we are all looking for. I'm sure you can prove to yourself what you ate for breakfast today and perhaps yesterday. The more complex or abstract a concept is, the harder it is to measure its attributes and paths, that i do agree with you. I'll say you won this one.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions