How about, "you have been unable to find an irrefutable fact?" Looks irrefutable enough to me.

But that is only a fact because I have not yet been able to find one. And yet I may well have found it but can't recognize it.

Excellent Mariner thank you

Good luck out there

I'll go for 2 + 2 = 4 or, if you prefer, 2 + 2 is not equal to a million camels. It's a sign that you are "doing philosophy" that you would even consider suggesting anything else. In life you would not dream of talking nonsense like that. But it is equal nonsense when "doing philosophy". One way of doing philosophy is recognising when you've started talking nonsense and asking why. In this case it's probably because you've got attached to this theory:

There are no facts.

The theory commits you to believing that 2 + 2 might not equal four. And so you go to ridiculous lengths to make the obvious falsehood consistent with the theory.

It's an example of what Wittgenstein calls being 'bewitched' by language. “The confusions which occupy us arise when language is like an engine idling, not when it is doing work.” (Philosophical Investigations 132).

For example, someone asks you if you have enough money for the cab home and your answer is - "I might have a million camels or four dollars." If it doesn't work in life it won't work in the philosophy lab either.

Very well made point and I can see how it fits into Wittgenstein's view of course based on eons of other equally intelligent people asking Philosophical questions, but when examined it didn't give me enough peace or faith that "there are facts because it makes life easier" doesn't make mine more "ok".
Please, give me one fact in your life that you believe is FACT. Nothing more, inclusive of any further attempts at demeaning me while I am "doing Philosophy".
If you think you look more intelligent than me or better than me by attempting to bully me on a Philosophy forum as I ask a fucking simply question. FACT = TRUE? It only proves you are at the wrong fucking forum.
Thank you for your help,

Good luck out there

'True' is a description of a proposition. Without being attached to a proposition the word 'true' doesn't assert anything, so if what you mean by 'FACT' is 'true' then I agree there is no such thing.

Once again thank you Londoner

when I utilized "true" I was trying to indicate the concept of irrefutability in as simple way as possible.

My quest is to find the truth in truth.

Thank you

Got any FACTS we can chew over?

Good luck out there

There is no 'truth in truth' just as there is no 'colour in colour' or 'number in number'. That is because just as 'colour' is not the name of a colour, and 'number' is not a particular number, 'truth' is not itself a proposition.

I think the 'concept of irrefutability' is unclear. For example, does it mean 'to disprove'? If that was the case, then to prove a FACT false would be to assert its negation as a FACT. If I can successfully refute X, then I can assert 'not-X' as a FACT. If there are no possible examples of FACTS then there are no possible examples of refutations - and vice-versa.

So I cannot give you any examples of FACTS because what you understand by FACT contains a self-contradiction.

Do "facts" exist? Well, maybe. Maybe not. You'd think that as a sceptic, I'd rail against the concept. But that would be a misconception of scepticism in general. The name of that game is non-assertion, not denial. Trying to show that "facts" don't exist is a good rhetorical exercise though.

Can you please give me one example of a "FACT" that you feel is irrefutable? I have been racking my couple pound soft, gooey mess I use to figure answers, I simply am thus far unable. — Robert Peters

A "fact" is an entity, a concept, associated with a particular understanding that the world exists independent of the human mind, which, itself, is not a fact. On the other hand, the idea of a fact is useful and manageable, by which I mean we can handle the inevitable uncertainties.

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’” - Stephen J. Gould. From “"Evolution as Fact and Theory,” in “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes.”

Do "facts" exist? Well, maybe. Maybe not. — Ying

More to this than meets the eye. At the moment everyone is corkscrewed around with language. For example, true does not equal fact. If you or anyone does not know the difference between them, let them say so. Meanwhile I'll just assume everyone does, and that will save me from typing what most have no need of reading.

"Do 'facts' exist?" Actually two questions. The first is that which, imo, everyone understands, and is not very interesting. "That is a brick," is a fact if it is a brick, otherwise not. And it might not be. We could be deceived. But we can also find out - verify - if it is a brick.

The second question breaks out into a group of questions constellated about the phenomenon - the intentionality - of the question and its answer. Do they exist? How do they exist?

I think they do exist. The intention, the questioning, the answering, the question, and the answer all exist. Subjectively, in that they're mine; objectively in that 1) they're shared, and 2) transcendent in that they bring to partial presence that which is a greater, and always more or less obscure (e.g., the brick itself).

It all leads back to modes of being: intentionality, awareness, expectation, empathy. Please add to this list whatever you think might be missing. What makes it difficult to think about these types of existence, for me, is the hard-to-resist urge to ground them in something solid, something that exists in a way that I am thoroughly accustomed to. Of course they're not so grounded; they're found neither in the grocery store nor the hardware store, nor any other store.

I have a test of sorts for the existence of awareness (derived from a book, The Phenomenon of Awareness, Tougas, 2013). You know what three is. Does three exist. You can argue that three is a useful idea, shared out in every culture, so that it is a part of collective knowledge. That is, not something that exists in itself. Hmmm. But it is easy to imagine beings from another planet, without any exposure at all the the benefits of our society, who also have a clear awareness of what three is. Doesn't it seem like three must have some sort of objective existence of its own?

I have been racking my couple pound soft, gooey mess I use to figure answers, I simply am thus far unable. — Robert Peters

Is that a fact? :rofl:

For example, true does not equal fact. — tim wood

A bit of explication would be helpful.

"That is a brick," is a fact if it is a brick, otherwise not. — tim wood

Perhaps this shows that bricks exist, but it doesn't show that facts exist.

I have a test of sorts for the existence of awareness (derived from a book, The Phenomenon of Awareness, Tougas, 2013). You know what three is. Does three exist. You can argue that three is a useful idea, shared out in every culture, so that it is a part of collective knowledge. That is, not something that exists in itself. Hmmm. But it is easy to imagine beings from another planet, without any exposure at all the the benefits of our society, who also have a clear awareness of what three is. Doesn't it seem like three must have some sort of objective existence of its own? — tim wood

I'm a bit lost. Now it sounds like, for you, saying something is a fact is the same as saying it exists. But I don't think that is what you are saying.

More to this than meets the eye. — tim wood

I guess.

"The formulae "perhaps" and "perhaps not," and "possibly" and "possibly not," and "maybe" and "maybe not," we adopt in place of "perhaps it is and perhaps it is not," and "possibly it is and possibly it is not," and "maybe it is and maybe it is not," so that for the sake of conciseness we adopt the phrase "possibly not" instead of "possibly it is not," and "maybe not" instead of "maybe it is not," and "perhaps not" instead of "perhaps it is not." But here again we do not fight about phrases nor do we inquire whether the phrases indicate realities, but we adopt them, as I said, in a loose sense. Still it is evident, as I think, that these expressions are indicative of non-assertion. Certainly the person who says "perhaps it is" is implicitly affirming also the seemingly contradictory phrase "perhaps it is not" by his refusal to make the positive assertion that "it is." And the same applies to all the other cases."
-Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 1, ch. 21.

For example, true does not equal fact.
— tim wood

A bit of explication would be helpful. — T Clark

First point. True and fact are often used interchangeably. They shouldn't be, but usually it makes no difference - everyone understands what is meant. On the other hand, if you're going to talk about truth and fact, then misuse is a sign you don't really have a handle on what you're talking about. You might, but using the wrong words just makes discussion difficult, or throws it off track or into error.

Both are names for propositions. A fact is a proposition about the world that could be true or false, or equivocal. That is, not that there are false facts, but rather that the proposition could be mistaken. "That is a brick." If the criteria for a brick is met, then it's a brick. If it is a brick, then we can reasonably say that the proposition, "That is a brick," is true. Or another way: a fact is always empirical, subject to conditions. If our criteria change, then the brick might not be a brick any more. A proposition is true when it cannot be otherwise. 2+2=4 is true - you can think of more examples. Of course underlying this is that the terms are well-defined.

A proposition like, "The girl over there is my sister," could be either. It's a fact if she is my sister. Or, on the argument that she and I share the same parents, then it's true (because it cannot be otherwise).

Truth is formal, static unchanging
Fact is empirical, approximate, becoming

‘Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts’ ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan

‘ A little learning is dangerous’ ~ Edgar Allen Poe

I'm a bit lost. Now it sounds like, for you, saying something is a fact is the same as saying it exists. But I don't think that is what you are saying. — T Clark

I get lost too. Consider a dream. Suppose you dream of something, an x (you decide what x is). The question is, is x real? Clearly not, in the ordinary sense. But you did have an experience of (the) x. That was real, wasn't it? You reply, "Not a real experience!" Well then, is there any such thing as a real experience? Are some real and some not real? The experience is real: it exists. And for it to be real, the x has to exist to.

Another sense: you see a rock. No one questions that the rock exists (I don't, anyway). But it's pretty easy to demonstrate that whatever it is you see, it is definitely not the rock. "Seeing the rock," is just a convenient fiction for something that is even now mysterious. Of course there is your perception of the rock. Subject, object. What mediates them? How does one get (in)to the other?

All this falls under phenomenology, and phenomenology requires it own definitions of existence and reality - of being, to use one word in place of two. The ancient Greeks kept it simple, a simplicity that got lost, and that Heidegger successfully made a career out of recovering. Being/existence wasn't a matter of mass; it was instead a matter of efficacy. In short if it could make something happen, then it was. If it couldn't then it wasn't. (It took Heidegger to invoke the nothing that "noths.")

For phenomenology, this provides a pedigree for an assertion of the existence of phenomenon. Modes of being, that I mention above, exist, are real. They're efficacious. But exactly what they are, and how they work, I'm still trying to figure out. For example, they're temporal, but that means they have to be understood in terms of present, past, and future.

Truth is formal, static unchanging
Fact is empirical, approximate, becoming — Cavacava

Your ten words are better than my hundred or so.

. At the moment everyone is corkscrewed around with language. For example, true does not equal fact. — tim wood

It is also confused because Robert Peters originally had two threads on the same subject, one of which seems to have been deleted.

There seems to be some significance in that we are asked for a FACT, i.e. that he is not talking about the word 'fact' as it is usually used. What is meant remains unclear, pending the return of Mr Peters.

"Truth" is an inside-brain EFFECT, an epiphaenomenon.= mere symptom = does nuthang,

ON-, OF-, obtained/acquired FROM-, ABOUT-

outside-brain causal agency aka
"Fact", object[IVE Template], object, matter, physical world, cosmos.

The question "does an apple ACTUALLY exist" is pointless -
"it exists" JUST means that you fabricated the properties = TRUTHS
ON-, OF-, obtained/acquired FROM-, ABOUT-
the outside-brain causal agency, aka "Fact", the "apple" that is

Sorry about the demeaning tone, Rob. I hid it behind Wittgenstein but it was there. That is a fact and cannot be denied. Irrefutable, even if I tried to refute it.

So let's grant for the sake of argument that there are no facts and nothing is true. Now what?

You did ask for something I consider a fact and my offering was based on your OP.