it doesn't follow from that that there are no unobserved facts. — Janus

You have examples of unobserved facts?

That's a silly question; if I were to give you an example it could not but be of an observed fact. We know there are facts yet to be discovered and facts that will never be discovered.

Accuracy is -- if you wish -- the quantitative version of truth. Truth is black or white, yes or no, but accuracy goes by degree; one can be more or less accurate but not more or less true (there's the concept of "true enough", which means "accurate enough"). The concept of accuracy is therefore apt for natural sciences, perhaps more so than the concept of truth, because in natural science facts are usually understood as quantitative measurements, always coming with a certain margin of imprecision. — Olivier5

This looks to be doublespeak. That the table is 3.0±0.1m is either true or false.

2. An observation might be made that is erroneous. That is, not true.
— Banno

In this case it is an inaccurate observation, ergo not a fact. Beside, the way to tell if a previous observation was accurate or not is to redo the observation (or a similar one) and compare the results. Therefore one corrects inaccurate observations via other, more accurate observations. Not via more theory or revelations from the gods. — Olivier5

Leaving begging the very question you rhetorically ask of me: how do you differentiate between the erroneous observations and the correct ones?

4. Counter examples. That the area of a circle is given by r² is a fact but is not an observation. That the bishop always moved diagonally is a fact but not an observation. It will not do to claim that we learn these by observation, since learning something does not make each a fact
— Banno

Again, addressed already. — Olivier5

As explained in detail, some facts are true in virtue of the institutions in which they occur. Such facts are not true in virtue of observations.

A fact is a socially accepted idea about others and right or wrong and our physical existences.

In order for me to be obliged to pay, I must accept "it". But the "it" I must accept is called a bet; hence, it being natural to say "I accept that bet". If I reject "it", I am not obliged to pay out; but again, the "it" that I reject is called a bet; hence it being natural to say, "I reject that bet".

I'm appealing to natural use of the language as the standard by which we judge what "to bet" means... that would be the part of my quote that you left out. So I added it back in for you... just in case you want to actually reply to me. — InPitzotl

Let's use the nearby word "wager" to mean an agreement between two parties that one of them will pay the other some agreed upon amount depending on the outcome of some event. It's a kind of contract.

When you say "I bet you ...", you, as it were, write up a virtual contract. That there is such a thing could count as a fact, but it's only the fact that you said what you said.

It would be more interesting if, having written up this virtual contract, you had signed it, thereby creating a binding offer to enter into a wager. That would be a fact of more interest.

How is anyone to know whether you have signed this virtual contract? They could ask you, of course. Or they could accept your offer and then you'd have to agree or back out -- say you were just kidding, something like that. Neither is a great option.

It is precisely because of such uncertainties, and to avoid the necessity for one side to commit just to find out if the other has made a genuine offer, that behavior around all sorts of contracts, including wagers, tends to be formalized, to varying degrees.

Now you could say that the person who says "I bet you ..." knows whether the offer was genuine, but the rest of the world has no interest in such "private facts".

While I recognize the common usage of "I bet you ..." to mean "I am offering to enter into a wager with you such that ...", I don't consider that offer, absent a way of verifying your virtual signature, a fact.

There is a wager once the parties have a contract, and the word "bet" is also used in this sense. ("Do we have a bet?" is a member of the same family as "Do we have a deal?", "Do we have an agreement?", and "Do we have a contract?") Such a contract is certainly some kind of fact, but it is not a fact you can create entirely on your own, any more than you can make money gambling on your own game of solitaire.

That the table is 3.0±0.1m is either true or false. — Banno

My point entirely. The two concepts of accuracy and truth are tightly connected.

how do you differentiate between the erroneous observations and the correct ones? — Banno

By doing more observations, usually.

As explained in detail, some facts are true in virtue of the institutions in which they occur. Such facts are not true in virtue of observations. — Banno

Right, and if you say so two thousand times, maybe it will turn true.

We know there are facts yet to be discovered and facts that will never be discovered. — Janus

And you know that how? It looks like a silly profession of faith to me.

Faith has nothing to do with it. There must have been uncountable commonplace historical events about which we know nothing. There must be vast numbers of facts about the stars and planets in this galaxy and other galaxies which have not, and may never be, discovered. I don't know how you could seriously deny any of that. So, I genuinely still don't understand your position.

My point entirely. — Olivier5

Yep; accuracy is just camouflaged truth.

So your account is that a fact is a true observation.

Now, about those pesky facts that are not observations...

What observation leads to the conclusion that the area of a circle is given by π r² ?

None. So is it not a fact, or are there facts that are not dependent on observation?

Hmm. For @Olivier5, Is it that every fact is known? Must be. Then how do facts differ from knowledge? Must be the same thing.

Delicately nuanced stuff.

For Olivier5, Is it that every fact is known? — Banno

Yes, I was thinking that if only observations are facts then anything in the human past which has not been documented cannot be a fact of history. What if Caesar didn't cross the Rubicon? Was Leonardo gay or not? On Olivier's view there can be no facts of the matter in such cases.

What's philosophically interesting is why folk insist on such odd notions.

I gather it's something to do with wishing that every statement be dubitable. Not sure what @Olivier5's take on this is - Popper, Quine, pragmatism, post modern - probably not the latter, since there seems to be a strong scientism bent going on.

Why insist that only observations are facts?

There must be vast numbers of facts about the stars and planets in this galaxy and other galaxies which have not, and may never be, discovered. — Janus

Not if one defines facts as statements or descriptions. What exists exists, but in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. That is my position, and it is commonplace.

it is commonplace. — Olivier5

That's interesting. Where?

accuracy is just camouflaged truth. — Banno

Or vice versa: truth is better defined as accuracy, at least in science.

What observation leads to the conclusion that the area of a circle is given by π r² ? — Banno

Don't ask me. Ask yourself: "how did I (Banno) get to this conclusion? How do I know it for a fact?"

Surely you must have some reason to believe in that formula. What are those reasons?

What exists exists, but in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. — Olivier5

That's not true. You can make a true statement about whether or not Leonardo was really gay. You can say "Leonardo was gay" and " Leonardo was not gay" and one of those statements will be a true statement, a fact; no observation required. The fact that we don't know which is true is irrelevant, because the truth does not depend on our knowing it. Do you still claim that we agree on this?

Surely you must have some reason to believe in that formula. What are those reasons? — Olivier5

Reasons, sure. Not observations.

@Olivier5 Are you viewing ‘observe’ as ‘experience’? I find it difficult to see your point (or if there is one).

Sure, the items of accuracy and truth are connected. That isn’t saying much though. I cannot ‘observe’ 1 yet I can say 1+1=2 is a specific fact of basic addition. A Concrete fact could be that the Sun rises everyday, yet from another perspective this could be regarded as silly because the Sun doesn’t ‘rise’ it merely appears to rise. Observed from a particular area of Venus the Sun it merely there in the Sky.

From here we can of course argue further that ALL such items are merely Abstractions. So, there you could push home a reductionist argument of what constitutes ‘fact’ in pure terms of ‘observation’. My only question would they be to what ends? What can/do you/we achieve by shifting our perspective thus? Or is it just ‘for the hell of it’ so-to-speak (fine by me).

I’m guessing he means ‘reasons’ based on ‘learnt observations’. Reductionist perspective of what a ‘fact’ can be or is.

@Janus You like monads I take it? You cling to ‘essences’? Some ‘pure form’? If not then explain your view regarding ‘truth’/‘fact’ please. I’m interested to hear.

Reasons, sure. Not observations. — Banno

And what reasons are those?

----

in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. — Olivier5

You can say "Leonardo was gay" and " Leonardo was not gay" and one of those statements will be a true statement, a fact; no observation required. — Janus

But you still need someone stating the statement for a statement to exist. Without someone saying "Leonardo was gay", this statement is not in existence so it cannot be true or false. And once it has been stated by someone, its truth value can only be assessed by someone based on the available empirical evidence to someone. It is not a fact if it is not buttressed by any evidence.

And what reasons are those? — Olivier5

DO you have a point?

Are you viewing ‘observe’ as ‘experience’? — I like sushi

I am talking about the collection of data via human, conscious, careful perception and documentation of a phenomenon.

I cannot ‘observe’ 1 yet I can say 1+1=2 is a specific fact of basic addition. — I like sushi

Let me start by agreeing that mathematical facts may present a problem for my definition.

1+1=2 can be seen as the definition of 2, and I am not sure that definitions count as facts. Yet there are many more mathematical statements not counting as definitions or tautologies, like the Pytagoras theorem.

My way of thinking of such 'facts' is as follows: "Using the tools of classical logic, it is possible to logically derive from a certain set of fundamental statements (axioms) a number of other statements (theorems). If the axioms are true, the theorems are true.

The fact is in the logical link between axioms and theorems. The axioms themselves are neither true nor false, they are never proven by definition. They are just ASSUMED true to derive a certain type of mathematics.

So the question of mathematical facts boils down to: Does there exist logical facts? Like: is the law of excluded middle a fact?

I think that may be stretching the concept of fact too far.

My only question would they be to what ends? What can/do you/we achieve by shifting our perspective thus? — I like sushi

Mine is the classic distinction between facts and theories. It is mainstream. The SEP entry on 'Facts' starts thus:

Facts

Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993)

I am trying to help you make your point.

Let me start by agreeing that mathematical facts may present a problem for my definition. — Olivier5

Indeed.

It is mainstream. — Olivier5

No, it isn't.

I think I've finished. I don't want to kick the puppy.

I don't want to kick the puppy. — Banno

Thanks for your mercy.

Okay, let's start here.

While I recognize the common usage of "I bet you ..." to mean "I am offering to enter into a wager with you such that ...", — Srap Tasmaner

So you acknowledge bet can have this meaning. Let's call this bet(1).

There is a wager once the parties have a contract, and the word "bet" is also used in this sense. — Srap Tasmaner

Sure. "Bet" can also have this meaning. Let's call this bet(2).

Such a contract is certainly some kind of fact, — Srap Tasmaner

Let's suppose your name is East, and my name is South. We are negotiating a contract. During the "bidding process" (that being the formalized negotiation mechanism for such bets), I say "two no-trump". Immediately afterwards, someone called West says "pass", followed by someone called North saying "pass", and then you, East, say "pass".

I claim that it is a fact that I bet(1) two no-trump. My bet(1) of two no-trump happened on my "turn" of the bidding. You claim that it's certainly some kind of fact that the four of us bet(2) something akin to that North and I would collect eight tricks if we played our current hands as a two no-trump hand; said bet(2) happening after you say "pass". But you are trying with several paragraphs of nonsense to argue that by contrast, it is not a fact that I bet(1) two no-trump.

But how does this work exactly? How can it possibly be a type of fact that the four of us collectively bet(2) on this contract if it's not a fact that I bet(1) two no-trump?

@Olivier5 @Janus

Y'all might want to look at Fitch's paradox, which has been discussed on this site before.

This is an excellent example (and I envy you your knowledge of bridge).

We are in complete agreement. As you noted, the reason what happens on your turn counts as a fact is precisely because bidding is highly formalized. This is exactly what I have been claiming.

Like the christening of a ship or any other speech act, it requires specific circumstances and the cooperation of others. — Srap Tasmaner

From there we ended up on the bet(1) vs bet(2) debate, but "cooperation" there was not intended as a stand-in for "accepting an offer" -- not all speech acts work that way. Most of the examples I gave don't.

In your bridge example, all of you have accepted a set of rules and conventions, and within that framework saying "two no-trump" absolutely counts as a bet(1). No one has to wonder whether you were kidding or musing or expressing your degree of confidence; in these circumstances, that is unambiguously a bet(1). That's the whole point of formalizing these things, so that everyone can know when a binding offer has been made. Your bid, in these circumstances, absolutely engenders a fact of some kind.

By the way, going back to see if I had mis-spoken, I noticed this:

Might I suggest there are different "kinds" of facts, and they feel different because they're doing different things? But along those lines, "water molecules are composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", "bishops always stay on their own color", and "Joe is married to Sue" all feel different to me... IOW, perhaps a taxonomy of facts would be preferred to a refinement of the concept? — InPitzotl

This is also very much my feeling. These things strike me as quite different, so I have resisted using the word "fact" for all of them, but I'd be perfectly comfortable talking about kinds of facts. They do all have in common the experience of something that is "not up to me", and it could be worthwhile to use the word "fact" for that sense, even if we distinguish different ways, or different reasons why, something is not up to me.

You like monads I take it? You cling to ‘essences’? Some ‘pure form’? If not then explain your view regarding ‘truth’/‘fact’ please. I’m interested to hear. — I like sushi

I don't understand the thrust of your question. If you read over my posts in this thread you should be able to glean some insight into my fairly pedestrian view of what facts/ truths consist in; it has nothing to do with monads or essences.

in order to get to a true statement describing some state of affairs accurately, you need an observer observing. — Olivier5


You can say "Leonardo was gay" and " Leonardo was not gay" and one of those statements will be a true statement, a fact; no observation required. — Janus


But you still need someone stating the statement for a statement to exist. Without someone saying "Leonardo was gay", this statement is not in existence so it cannot be true or false. And once it has been stated by someone, its truth value can only be assessed by someone based on the available empirical evidence to someone. It is not a fact if it is not buttressed by any evidence. — Olivier5

Isn't that what I just said? You are not addressing the point; that you can state a fact without any observation to back it up. If Leonardo was gay, that is a fact. If Leonardo was not gay, that is a fact. We have no way of knowing which is the fact; and that is a fact.

If you confine the meaning of 'fact' to one of its common usages; i.e.true statements, then of course it will only be statements that are facts or not. If you allow for the fact that there is also a common usage that casts facts as actualities or states of affairs, then there can be facts that are never stated, let alone observed.