I can understand your definition of 'fact' and I've acknowledged it accords with one of the common usages, but not with the other. You seem to want to dictate that the other, which makes perfect sense to me, and, I have no doubt, many other people, is somehow wrong or incoherent. — Janus
I can also agree that "a fact is a true statement." And you are right that the term is sometimes used this way in English. — Olivier5
My point is simply that this definition does not help identify what is a fact and what is not. — Olivier5
So I am looking for a definition that would help one differentiate facts from non-facts. — Olivier5
The door is shut. — Banno
It can be used as a statement and as a fact.
— Banno
What can? — bongo fury
The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. — Janus
You still haven't attempted to deal with the example I gave of prisoners who are innocent; an example that shows that what is generally held to be fact may not be, even if that fact is never discovered. What kind of definition would be able to distinguish fact from fiction in such a case? — Janus
That would seem to imply that there could exist facts that are yet unknown to us. Which is different from saying: "we will tomorrow discover (or observe) facts that we have no clue about yet", in the critical sense that it implies the existence of a world in itself, in which there exist facts.I also have indicated, as has Banno, the other usage equating facts with actual (as opposed to imaginary or fictional) states of affairs or situations or events or whatever you want to call them. — Janus
The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation — Janus
I have attempted to deal with it by pointing out that in this example, you imagine a certain state of affairs and declare it such, as true. — Olivier5
The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. — Janus
Voilà. — Olivier5
And that is because a fact is a statement known to be true, or accurate enough (ergo based on accurate, replicable or otherwise dependable evidence). It's not just a true statement. It's a well buttressed one. — Olivier5
So far, you haven't offered any counterexamples or counterarguments, you just keep repeating the same assertions. — Janus
The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation.
The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation.
The trouble here is of course that what counts as a suitable observation is already theoretical - already an interpretation. Observations thus cannot fulfil this role as a foundation to knowledge. — Banno
The trouble here is of course that what counts as a suitable observation is already theoretical - already an interpretation. Observations thus cannot fulfil this role as a foundation to knowledge. — Banno
If a convict is actually innocent of a crime is it not a fact that he didn't commit the crime even if no one knows it? — Janus
The only thing that differentiates facts from non-facts is knowledge gained by observation. — Janus
Voilà.
— Olivier5
I'm not saying what I think you think I'm saying. I'm talking here about how we determine what we consider to be facts. I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined. — Janus
I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined. — Janus
You ARE saying what I am saying, you are just too stubborn to realize it. — Olivier5
I'm not saying that facts are dependent upon being determined. — Janus
But the logic behind our understanding of factuality is not such that facts are fallible; it is that facts are facts and once a fact always a fact. — Janus
The word 'fact' is often used throughout the English speaking world. Some philosophers believe that nouns like 'fact' have an exact meaning. I'm not sure what could be the exact meaning of fact. :confused:Everyone may know what a fact is but I am not sure what everyone thinks a fact is. — Athena
That doesn’t allow for the possibility of something that is thought by everyone to be a fact which subsequently turns out not to be. You’re appealing to a notion of ‘fact’ that transcends the possibility of being wrong, or saying that established facts are incontrovertible, when they often turn out not to be. — Wayfarer
for Oliver5 there is no distinction between facts and what we take to be facts — Janus
I think you're right. It's the public who decide what a "facts" is, not armchair philosophers.A fact is a fact because our theories make them a fact. — Thunderballs
You haven't addressed the fact that when the innocent and the guilty persons are both dead no one knows the fact of the matter; which remain facts of the matter nonetheless. And you have addressed the problem with your view of what constitutes a fact as it relates to historical fact. On your view there can be no historical fact because there is no way of observing the events in question in order to determine what actually happened. — Janus
I disagree with your view; get over it. — Janus
I think you're right. It's the public who decide what a "facts" is, not armchair philosophers. — Wheatley
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.