There has to be some hierarchy for beliefs. Perhaps we could define one here. I would say a scientific law would be the highest, if not equivalent with a 'fact', but then what is a factoid? And of course an opinion would be lower, with non-disproved hypothesis being higher than that but of course lower than the rest. But where would a discredited/disproved hypothesis be, on par with a lie or incorrect statement?

- Scientific law - The sun is a ball of gas.
- - Fact - The sun is real.
- - - Factoid - The sun is hot.
- - - - Non-disproved hypothesis (rational or plausible) - The sun might expand/explode or something and kill us all shortly.
- - - - - Opinion - The sun is good.
- - - - - - Discredited hypothesis (irrational or unrealistic) - The sun revolves around us.
- - - - - - - Lie - The sun is a death ray or gamma burst from so far away it appears the same for millennia. (or is it?)

facts are always and notoriously historical facts." — tim wood

Yes, my point entirely. A fact is always in the past. Your quote was from Collingwood, right?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I made it to chapter XV... Really should pick his Essay again and finish it.

What do we make of Collingwood here saying "ascertain" rather than, say, "establish"?

A term more fitted for an historian, I guess. Historical facts are well established in recent times, eg the 20th century. But when speaking of say antiquity, an historian tries to carefully ascertain facts. He will never totally establish them stricto sensu.

Sorry, what I was trying to ask was whether Collingwood is any help with this: some people use "fact" to mean a state of affairs that does or did obtain; others seem to mean our descriptions of such things. (It seems a little easier to convince people to use "true" only for propositions, but "the truth" is still out there (heh) in the wild, as a phrase.) I've been trying to go around the whole issue, or dissolve the issue, or something, so I was just curious.

What's a fact? It's a fact that many suffer from some kind of psychosis here! Is that really a question in philosophy? What wrong road was taken on the philosophical paths?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I long used as my moto: "Truth is in the well". It comes from an aphorism of Democritus, "Of truth we know nothing, for truth is in a well". The image suggest that truth was thrown into a well, in a sort of murderous act, by people who did not want it to come out. Which is true, more often then not.

So yes, truth is out there, but hidden. It is not obvious and easily accessible by all. In order to discover it, we need to search for it with care. And once we discover it, we often have to fight off those who threw it in the well.

Hence the need for strong empirical data (hard facts) to establish the truth, in my view.



Truth coming from the well armed with her whip to chastise mankind, by Jean-Léon Gérôme
(scary...)

Wow! What a painting!

Yes it bloody is. You wrote: "Let's say he's innocent". This immediately establishes his innocence in your narrative. This is the only reason why you can write later on: "It remains a fact that he didn't murder Miss Rabbit". — Olivier5

It is stipulated that, in the story, he is innocent, but that his innocence is never established. Are you denying that there might be prison inmates who are innocent of their purported crimes?

Fourteen pages in. What is a fact? Anyone? — tim wood

Two definitions have been given which reflect two different common usages. One conceives of a fact as a proposition that states an actual state of affairs and the other conceives of a fact as an actual state of affairs. What more do you want?

Hence the need for strong empirical data (hard facts) to establish the truth, in my view. — Olivier5

Dunno. How will you establish quantum fields and the beginning of the big bang (inflation)?

How will you establish quantum fields and the beginning of the big bang (inflation)? — Philofile

I'm not a specialist of this. Maybe it can, maybe it can't.

Two definitions have been given which reflect two different common usages. One conceives of a fact as a proposition that states an actual state of affairs and the other conceives of a fact as an actual state of affairs. What more do you want? — Janus

My definition: a fact is an accurate observation of a given state of affairs, independently verifiable and often verified by many, and thus attaining a high degree of certainty in public discourse.

Then yours accords only with the definition of facts as propositions, and not with facts as actualities.

Indeed.

Fourteen pages in. What is a fact? Anyone? — tim wood

Funny - I was going to ask the same question. We've had some strong hints here. I can imagine some arguing that a fact is an intersubjective agreement on a matter.

Meh. I gave you the answer in the fourth post. Everything after that is quibbling.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

There's a couple of uses for the word.

A fact is a statement that is true.

It is also the state of affairs set out by a true statement. — Banno

This. :wink:

I'm not a specialist of this. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. — Olivier5

Let me tell you, it can't. But they are facts.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

You do recognize your answer is actually a non sequitur, yes? And what, exactly, do you suppose "an actual state of affairs" is? — tim wood

I have no idea why you would say my answer is a "non sequitur". An actual state of affairs is a situation or event which exists or has existed, as opposed to an imagined or fictional state of affairs. What else?

So what something is, is what it is used for or how it is used? — tim wood

Don't know.

My preoccupation is how do we determine a fact is a true statement?

It still seems to be about correspondence, but I take the point that correspondence is probably the wrong noun. It's a relationship or an equivalence.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Meh. I gave you the answer in the fourth post. Everything after that is quibbling — Banno

Evidently your answer isn't as much help as you think it is.

Cheers.

...dismissive of what that is or how to account for it. — tim wood

Well, no; I answered that too, explicitly, like so...

My preoccupation is how do we determine a fact is a true statement? — Tom Storm

First, a fact is a true statement by definition. There are no facts that are not true. SO your preoccupation is ill-formed.

Second, the word "determine" is misplaced, since what you are asking, presumably, is when one ought believe; and that's not determinate. You can believe whatever you like. That doesn't make it true. That is, you are asking a normative question but looking for an epistemological answer.

Third, it would be very odd if there were a rule that set out when a statement ought be believed in every case. The closest we can get is a T-sentence.

This thread is so long because you and a few others havn't understood the answer.

Evidently your answer isn't as much help as you think it is. — Srap Tasmaner

There's nought queer as folk.