In a sense. In another sense a belief is just a statement that is held to be true. BOth are fine so long as we keep one eye on which we are using. — Banno

:up:
Good point. It's like we start with a sketch, see something missing, and add to it. I'd say that no sketch will ever master/capture the complexity of the use of 'belief.' It changes as we study it (our study is part of that change.)

The wild animal metaphor is apt; for the rest, I'll await the details. — Banno

I think discussing the meaning of fact is a great path for us getting to understand one another on this theme.

I do like that definition as definitions go. — Zugzwang

Nor I. Assenting to a statement makes it a belief, not a fact. Being true is what makes a statement a fact, assented to or not.

I'm retired. I sometimes forget what day it is. Also, in Hawaii it's 7:30 pm on Friday now. There, tomorrow will be Saturday. — T Clark

Sure, sometimes we are mistaken, but never as to the facts, only in our beliefs. And some facts are different elsewhere. None of that changes the fact that there are facts.

Is that a fact? — Banno

Probably not. It may be a metaphysical statement which, as I've said many times, are not true or false, only useful or not.

But it is also apparent that there are facts that are not provisional. — Banno

Are there any facts determined by induction, as opposed to those determined by deduction, that might not be wrong.

...determined... — T Clark

Determined to be true? Or determining one's belief as to it's truth?

It occurs to me that with a deductive argument we are talking about truth, but since induction is invalid, with a deductive argument we are talking about belief.

Might think on that a bit. Cheers.

Being true is what makes a statement a fact, assented to or not. — Banno

OK, I grant that. But I'd frame this as a statement about usage as opposed to a science of truth, fact, and assent. "You can safely substitute 'true statement' for 'fact' most of the time." I think of humans in the world interacting, barking and scrawling tokens. A definition is like teaching someone to put a worm on the hook. It's that practical, finally.

Maybe the difference is only attitude. We can express advice about usage successfully in the register of describing entities like facts.

One can of course propose an ideal or proper or authentic or official use of 'fact.' And that can be worthwhile.

It may be a metaphysical statement which, as I've said many times, are not true or false, only useful or not. — T Clark

I like that. You almost save the word 'metaphysics' from oblivion.

Stephen Jay Gould said:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

That's not an answer to the question. That's a false statement about when a proposition expresses a fact. Even if it were true, it would not tell us what a fact itself 'is'. It's akin to answering the philosophical question "what is yellow" with "bananas".

It's akin to answering the philosophical question "what is yellow" with "bananas". — Bartricks

That's another zinger. There's an anti-metaphysician within you, clawing its way out.

Even if it were true, it would not tell us what a fact itself 'is'. — Bartricks

But you'll have to fix the sentence above. As I asked elsewhere, what is the form of the answer that could tell you what a fact is? What more can you ask for than a definition...a context-relevant description of usage? What's a shovel? Well, we use it to dig, see. No, I mean what is a shovel, really? It's as if there's an ultra-vague Beyond that haunts metaphysics.

You lot are so confused it is painful.

So, statements can be true. But statements aren't facts. That's nonsense. The propositional content of a true statement expresses a fact. But it - the statement - is not itself a fact, but a statement - a true one. That's why if it is true that p, then it is a fact that p. The fact that p is what the proposition "it is true that p" asserts to be the case.

I like that. You almost save the word 'metaphysics' from oblivion. — Zugzwang

You think? I find it a bit sad that those hereabouts are so ready to dispatch truth to the backroom.

It's like we start with a sketch, see something missing, and add to it. — Zugzwang

...but pragmatism would have us throw out the sketch and draw something else. Failing to see the distinction between truth and belief they see belief can change and decide nothing is true.

That's another zinger. There's an anti-metaphysician within you, clawing its way out. — Zugzwang

I have no idea what that means.

But you'll have to fix the sentence above. As I asked elsewhere, what is the form of the answer that could tell you what a fact is? What more can you ask for than a definition...a context-relevant description of usage? What's a shovel? Well, we use it to dig, see. No, I mean what is a shovel, really? It's as if there's an ultra-vague Beyond that haunts metaphysics. — Zugzwang

That too.

There's an ambiguity to the word 'is' that makes questions such as "what is a fact?" ambiguous. But clearly the questioner is not asking to be provided with a list of facts, or told when we have facts on our hands, but with insight into what a fact is made of, so to speak.

And that's what I'm addressing. A fact is the asserted content of a true proposition. To get more by way of an answer would require answering the question "what is truth?" For until one answers that question one can't gain further insight into what, precisely, being the asserted content of a true proposition amounts to.

That's not an answer to the question. — Bartricks

Sure it is. It's just put in everyday language. People understand what it means. You understand what it means, even if you think it's not true.

That's a false statement — Bartricks

I think it's a very good description of what a fact is. It captures the uncertainty associated with all our knowledge while still enforcing a rigorous standard. Most philosophical discussions dick around with that.

You lot are so confused it is painful. — Bartricks

@Zugzwang, I don't know if you've come across @Bartricks in your wandering through the forum yet. He likes to insult people rather than engage in a collegial discussion.

Are you making empirical claims? Inferences from assumptions?? What case do you make ? My big point is that none of us control the use of these tokens. They are like the furniture of the social world. In that sense, we are in meaning, navigating signs that indicate promise and danger.

To my ears, talk about 'facts' and 'propositions' that isn't about usage is like talk about knights, bishops, and queens in chess. How are facts studied examined directly, as opposed to analyzing actual usage?

There's an ambiguity to the word 'is' that makes questions such as "what is a fact?" ambiguous. — Bartricks

Yes, ambiguity. I agree. I suspect it's only practical concern that keeps us from floating away in the fog of our language. A beaver builds dams. We write novels, sure that there's some extra dimension of 'meaning' involved. But what if we view our tokens (words) like sticks that a monkey might use to fish out a grub? What if some final clarity was itself the vaguest of projects?

insight into what a fact is made of, so to speak. — Bartricks

So to speak, figurative language. A metaphor. What are little boys facts made of? Statements and truth. That's what facts are made of. Does that satisfy? Facts are strings of iterable tokens, spoken or written or telepathically transmitted in their pure transparent non-linguistic form.

Are you making empirical claims? — Zugzwang

No.

What case do you make ? — Zugzwang

I have said that a fact is what's asserted by a true proposition. Now, if you disagree then kindly tell me what you'd call what's asserted by a true proposition.

I don't know if you've come across Bartricks in your wandering through the forum yet. He likes to insult people rather than engage in a collegial discussion. — T Clark

I find his insults amusing, to tell the truth. He's the straight man in his philosophical earnestness, and yet he'll shift into Tony Clifton when annoyed or frustrated. Fascinating combination.

I have said that a fact is what's asserted by a true proposition. Now, if you disagree then kindly tell me what you'd call what's asserted by a true proposition. — Bartricks

I don't dislike that definition in particular. The point is how you came up with it. Instead of talking about how a token tends to be exchanged, it's as if you are pronouncing truths about the supposed referents of these tokens. On what authority? In the real world, I have to worry about the many, many ways that 'fact' might be used by all kinds of people...and very little about the views of 'specialists' in such matters. (The idea of a 'specialist' in such a basic competence is a little absurd, like a professional chewer or walker.)

Stephen Jay Gould said:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. — T Clark

This is science apologetics.
If something can be confirmed as fact, explain how.
This definition is like saying 'something is confirmed if its been so confirmed that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'.

There's an ambiguity to the word 'is' that makes questions such as "what is a fact?" ambiguous. — Bartricks

Not only that, but there is an ambiguity to the word 'fact'. There is a common usage shown in the sentence 'The encyclopaedia is a compendium of facts' that does not accord with the other common usage which equates facts with states of affairs or actualities.

You think? I find it a bit sad that those hereabouts are so ready to dispatch truth to the backroom. — Banno

To me the everyday uses of 'truth' are safe and sound. It's one of those primary words. You just gotta know how to use and react to it. I guess the issue is whether the study of truth (and/or 'truth') should belong to philosophers or linguists.

...but pragmatism would have us throw out the sketch and draw something else. Failing to see the distinction between truth and belief they see belief can change and decide nothing is true. — Banno

Pragmatism is a big tent though. And I relate more to empiricism anyway, in the broad sense of look and see. I think we humans can't help but care about truth, call it what we will. Even the suicidal want to tie a good noose.

Are philosophers experts on some strange entity known as 'truth'? Or are they experts on a particular conversation ? Do they use 'truth' more effectively than others in the world outside this specialized conversation ? I don't know. But it doesn't seem like the same skill.

Even the suicidal want to tie a good noose. — Zugzwang

:grin:

I'm stealing that.

I'm stealing that. — Banno

Thx. :party: :death:

A fact is an accurate observation.

A fact is an accurate observation. — Olivier5

So if it can't be observed it isn't a fact? Are you an empiricist?

...accurate... — Olivier5

And an accurate observation is... one that is true, perhaps?

Hence a fact is a true observation?

So if it can't be observed it isn't a fact? — Tom Storm

Indeed; but that's not right. There are unobserved facts.

So if it can't be observed it isn't a fact? Are you an empiricist? — Tom Storm

Indeed, I am an empiricist.

The general use of the term 'fact' today is 'a true and settled statement about the state of affairs', or 'a statement that is known or proved to be true.' The implication is: undeniable by a sane person in good faith.

E.g. "It's a fact that Canada and the US share a rather long border". This example is purposely phrased a bit vaguely ("a rather long border"), because all human statements are ambiguous (to a smaller or larger degree), but note that it is still quite difficult to reject in good faith. So facts do not need to be super super precise to be facts.

My thesis is as follows: for a 'statement to be proved to be true' about some state of affairs, if empiricism is true and assuming the correspondance theory of truth, some accurate observations must have occured. Some dude must have seen something for a fact to be a fact.

To come back to our example, if you look at a map of North America, assuming the map is an accurate compilation of accurate geographical observations (eg satellite observation today) by well-trained and dutyful geographers, you can observe that the border between the US and Canada is indeed rather long.

Therefore, a fact is an accurate observation of some state of affairs.



Additionally, a time-honored method to explore the meaning of a word is to look at its etymology, and figure out how the word in question came to mean what it means today, via a historical evolution. It's like trying to trace the trajectory of a word's usage over time. Meaning being use, that method makes some sense.

Fact comes from Latin factum, neuter past participle of facere ‘do’. The original sense was ‘an act’, something done. Something you can't change, by implication, because it belongs to the past.

So originally, a fact is an act. How did it come to mean 'a true statement' or 'an accurate observation'? This semantic transition happened in the 17th century, precisely when empiricism established itself as one of the pillars of modern science. (The other pillar being rationalism)

I propose that in the work of scientists, a lot of observations get done, that observations are precisely an 'act’, something done. Something you can't change, by implication. If Galileo and others saw the moons of Jupiter in a correct or accurate observation, then it is a fact that Jupiter has moons.

So how do you determine if religious claims are fact or fiction?

I'm talking about scientific, empirical facts. Not sure what a "religious fact" would be? Do you have an example?

There are unobserved facts. — Banno

Such as?