A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less. — Douglas Alan
(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
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
A fact is a true proposition. — Douglas Alan
I take it to mean something like, "truth is enduring, that is, it will always be relevant, while a fact is relative. — BrianW
I propose instead: A fact is the state of things that is signified by a true proposition.A fact is a true proposition. — Douglas Alan
A proposition is traditionally defined as a sign that can be true or false, in contrast to a term or an argument.Can a proposition be true? — BrianW
but yours seems to me ignorance preening and congratulating itself for having said what is a piece of stupidity.
I propose instead: A fact is the state of things that is signified by a true proposition.
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.I would not object to that usage of the word "fact". Though I think that it can be used either way unproblematically. — 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
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
(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
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
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
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.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
↪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. [And] you can go frak yourself, kind sir. — Douglas Alan
A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less. — Douglas Alan
A fact is a true proposition.
— Douglas Alan
Really? How? Why? Under what understanding of the meanings of the terms? — tim wood
2+3=5 is also a fact. Can you explain why it is not? This argument of yours seems superfluous. — christian2017
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
More closely, can you not see a difference between 2+3=5 and "President Franklin Pierce was born in New Hampshire? — tim wood
More closely, can you not see a difference between 2+3=5 and "President Franklin Pierce was born in New Hampshire? — tim wood
Frivolity aside, you said categorically that a fact is a true proposition. — tim wood
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
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.Franklin Pierce has a concise (simplified) definition,... To a large degree the two things are both mathematical and also at the same time lingual. Am i missing something? — 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
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
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
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.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.