(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.

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

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?

(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.

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

A fact is a true proposition. — 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

(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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

↪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

Ah, irony! Frivolity aside, you said categorically that a fact is a true proposition. Hmm. A direct quote is best, here:

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

That "is" is a problem. I'd have thought that facts were things that propositions attempt to describe. That is, and precisely, that a fact is not the proposition that describes it. I suppose we can file this under naming and reference and I'm happy to do that, but it means that a least a little care has to be taken with the language to make sense, or we make no-sense - that, or that "fact" is a term-of-art in a certain application, its meaning well-understood by the people using it in that application.

Now, all I have done is say that facts are observed phenomena, presumably recorded/reported, and thus are historical in nature. That Roger Maris hit 61 home runs is a fact. In as much as it is no longer able of direct perception, the truth of the proposition that propounds that fact that is dependent on the historical record and not on either perception - you didn't see it (smell it, touch it, taste it, & etc.) - or direct proof. The "truth" of this fact about Roger Maris, then, is granted. If some fool said, "Prove it," the best you can do is present the record and appeal to the weight of it. That is, the proposition itself is never in-itself true - or rigorously provable. And there's nothing wrong with this; it's how the world works, including science-on-the-Charles. The issue here is usage and understanding.

A theorem in arithmetic, for example and on the other hand, or a proof from geometry, is a different animal. These in no way depend upon any historical record; they are just plain true. And if the fool says, "Prove it," then you can, in such terms as impose consent.

I objected to your usage and asked you to clarify, and look at how you did: you went to an expensive school; they taught you, you're happy, and frack me. Why don't you take a closer and somewhat more critical look. Here are my questions to you again:

A fact is a true proposition.
— Douglas Alan
Really? How? Why? Under what understanding of the meanings of the terms? — tim wood

I'm thinking that a certifiably smart guy like you, if you set your mind to it, can see that the true and the fact are not identical, are different animals, and that the terms are used interchangeably informally, but incorrectly, And we'll all grant that most of the time it doesn't matter. But here where the distinction is made, it is dismissed in error and misunderstanding. Where error and misunderstanding are proud....

2+3=5 is also a fact. Can you explain why it is not? This argument of yours seems superfluous. — christian2017

If you care not for any distinction between the two words "true" and "fact." Or maybe you don't see it. The first is a form of stupidity. the second, ignorance. Take some offense, but not too much. We're all stunningly ignorant all the time, and almost all of us are stupid sometimes.

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

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

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

Thanks. It's illuminating.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Interesting point. Wile's proof of Fermat's last theorem involves maths that most folks don't and won't understand (so it's said, nor do I disagree). So the proposition is true, as true as 2+3=5, just wa-ay more difficult. The best most of us can do, then, is take it as a fact, something historically conditioned, and present the available evidence in support of it - which of course is not the proof itself - and appeal to the weight of the evidence. One difference: in the case of the proof, we know so, in the case of the fact, we suppose so.

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.

There are many entries, and if you scan a bunch of them it should be clear to you that the terms are in many of those defined as terms-of-art. Which is a fine and good thing to do. To be inattentive to this distinction is akin to calling a chain-saw a tool used for carving - which sometimes it is - but not on a roast at the dinner table!