I agree that a fact is a statement. You aver it's a true statement but you have no standard for truth. — tim wood

@Janus and @Banno are arguing from the point of view of God, while you and I are arguing from a pragmatic human POV. Hence the disagreement. The moment they realize that they are not God, they will understand that facts can only be established by us humans via some evidence...

Indeed.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

in our biological metaphor, "deep at the heart of things" must be where the most essential components, the structurally vital organs are. — Olivier5

Ok, so what? Are some problems deeper than others, ie more vital, more central, more essential than others?

From experience, the real world appears infinitely 'deep'. Its richness in details is inexhaustible, its complexity apparently infinite, its possibilities exceeding all human imagination.

From that perspective, all problems are deep, but some answers cut deeper than other.

So depth, biologically, means something like "structural, fundamental, vital". — Olivier5

Let's see where that leads me...

Why is the depth of an organ, in complex animals like us, correlated to the vital character of the organ? Perhaps because we live in a dangerous world where predators or foes can always aggress you and therefore it stands to Darwinian reason that the most essential organs should be well protected by layers of less essential ones.

That'd be why your heart is located inside your rib cage. If you tried to literally "wear your heart on your sleeve", you'd be too easy to kill.

So in our biological metaphor, "deep at the heart of things" must be where the most essential components, the structurally vital organs are.

And the surface is where slightly less essential things are eg the skin, which is in fact essential too but more easily repairable, and the hair/fur/feathers, also very important to survival but less so than the heart.

Is it a good metaphor, or is there one you find more useful? — Srap Tasmaner

It's a good metaphor. There are always alternative metaphors I suppose.

I like the (different but related) expression "it cuts deep". Meaning "what you say hurts, emotionally" but also: it is a critique that goes to something vital, central, structurally important, as opposed to attacking a mere superficial feature (ie it's not a mere scratch).

So depth, biologically, means something like "structural, fundamental, vital".

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

This thread is not about him — Athena

Then don't mention him...

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?

Another reason for me to subscribe to Netflix, I suppose.
I seem to miss out on so much fun... — Amity

The first 6 episodes of Lupin are quite entertaining, then it goes South. Another series on Netflix I recommend: The 100.

Kitty Kallen - If I Give My Heart to You — Amity

I checked. The music of "Gentleman Cambrioleur" is credited to Jean-Pierre Bourtayre. Maybe he was "inspired" by "If I Give My Heart to You"?

This being about the greatest thief ever, it makes it okay to "steal with pride".

He is very well informed — Athena

He thinks he is, yes. I happen to disagree, often. He looks at history with Walt Disney's eyes, searching for vilains and heroes.

This is about the Arsène Lupin character, of recent Netflix fame. Depth estimated at 2 cm, give or take.


He's the biggest thief of them all
Yes, but he's a gentleman
He takes hold of your money
Without holding a gun to your head
When he steals from a woman
He send flowers
Gentleman Burglar
Is a true nobleman

He comes to your house at night
Without disturbing you in your sleep
He picks up quietly the painting
Bought the day before
Then before leaving
After his guilty works
He leaves a note on the piano

He's the biggest thief of them all
Yes, but he's a gentleman
And every woman in her own time
Dreams of seeing his face
From the actress to the dancer
And to the best of wives
Gentleman Burglar
Won the heart

I see you've been banned. Must be the fastest banning ever...

Due deference to the thread title, Mussolini was actually pretty stupid, wasn’t he? — Wayfarer

I don't think so. He was a brute alright, but not an idiot.

Sorry for the expletive.

No, it's not. — Janus

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".

Both Banno and I have acknowledged that there are two common usages regarding the term 'fact'. The first established facts are in accordance with the ordinary parlance of "the encyclopedia is full of facts" and the other common usage is facts as actualities or states of affairs. Obviously dictionaries are not full of worldly states of affairs..... if you don't acknowledge these usages which are contra your definition, it's no skin off my nose. — Janus

I am simply not aware that the word "fact" is used for things unknown, for things that may or may not be the case. But if you want to use if for "things we don't know of", it's no skin off my nose either. I just won't be able to understand you.

. It remains a fact, I would say, that he didn't murder Miss Rabbit, even though it will never be established as such. — Janus

The only reason you can say this is that, in your story, it IS established that the dude is innocent.

You are welcome to go for a personal meaning of the word 'fact'. Mine ​is simply the common use of the term in today's English. Don't take my word for it. Webster Merriam has these definitions:

2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality ("these are the hard facts of the case")
3: the quality of being actual ("a question of fact hinges on evidence")
4: a thing done ("accessory after the fact")

That seems like a distorted history to me. — Athena

Indeed. Apo has a strong bias in favour of Christianity and against Islam. It colors everything he says about history. He's basically a Christian apologetic.

And as Olivier5 pointed out, there are sound statistical techniques for estimating this sort of thing, if for some reason you need an actual number. My simple little argument only shows that there's nothing incoherent -- to me, anyway -- about talking about such a number we'll never be able to know. — Srap Tasmaner

A measurement is ALWAYS an estimation anyway. There is no way you can know the absolute exact length of your dinner table. But all you need, for any purpose, is an accurate enough estimation. The same applies to the number of trees in state X.

if determination of the truth is not possible then that still rules out the definition that Olivier5 gave that a fact is an accurate observation it seems. — Janus

Once more, a fact is more than just something true. It is a statement known to be true, established, that only a madman or a liar would deny. That level of certainty can't be based on conjectures. It must be empirical.

The plain fact is that being true and being known to be true are two different things. — Banno

But a fact is not just something true, it is something known to be true.

For the conflict between frameworks, I got nuthin'. — Srap Tasmaner

Methodological frameworks combining several methodological frameworks, e.g. quants and qual, in-depth interviews of a few informants and mass surveys. It actually exist in social sciences under the (confusing) name "theory-based approaches". Basically the idea is to approach an issue from several different angles.

Exactly.

I can see an issue when the framework is chosen and or enforced purposefully to avoid certains facts to come out. Or more simply: certain frameworks leave certain facts out, and others tend to bring them up. I am thinking of race or gender or poverty, and how certain official statistical frameworks can be biased towards the positive, and hide some social ills more than reveal them. I guess this is a risk especially in social sciences.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, they say.

In my front-yard example, you get to ask exactly how many blades of grass there are if you've already settled what counts as being in the front yard and what counts as a blade of grass — Srap Tasmaner

These are actual botanical questions, and there are agronomic/ecologic methods to estimate via sampling the biomass per species in a given area or field. These methods can reliably estimate the population density (nb of plants per m2), and other important characteristics such the average number of stem per plant, the average number of grains per stem, and the average weight of one grain (say of wheat, or barley). This is useful in case of crop failure as it allows scientists (or farmers, as it's easy to do) to pinpoint the moment in the life of the crop when something wrong happened to the plants, and measure precisely the impact it had on yields. In forestry, cubing a forest helps you estimate its yield prior to harvest.

So you are right that there exist frameworks (agriculture, forestry, ecology as a science) where such facts matter and are measured.

It does not make them less factual. Just because all facts (observations) happen within a certain theoretical framework does not imply that they are not useful as facts, that you can't rely on when making decisions within this framework.

we must NOT stop at observation. — Athena

Who said anything about stopping there?

And good science depends on good observation.

we can not trust what we think we see and our experience of the same thing may not agree. — Athena

That makes determining what a fact is very important. — Athena

So how do you propose determining what is a fact and what isn't, if you cannot trust what you see?

If we have different definitions of the term 'fact' what would determine who is right? I would say the only reasonable answer to that would be common usage, and from what I have observed common usage is on my side. — Janus

I don't think so. The common usage is rather: "a statement recognized as true by many folks, and beyond reasonable doubt". And for that to be the case, there needs to be evidence for the statement, therefore some accurate observation must be done.

Yes, it is probably linked to education and most importantly culture. I find the SEP parochial, but it's probably useful for some as a sort of Junior Woodchucks Guidebook on anglophone academic philosophy.

Did I slay a holy cockroach of yours or what?

The SEP is not a resource I use. It's written for students who need simple guidance on issues such as "How do we know that snow is white?". It is not a useful resource to assess philosophies. Also it cannot possibly be exhaustive, and tends to prioritize anglophone writers and traditions because of its origins - sometimes giving alot of room to super-obscure folks and none to some other much more famous philosopher who happened to write in Spanish, French or Portuguese. This is not a default but certainly it is a bias.

So just because one of my ideas is not given an entry in the SEP is not a concern for me. They cannot know everything. :-)

You are just trying to confuse yourself, as usual... And you're quite good at it, might I add.

The example "snow is white" speaks of the color of snow. Color is a type of appearance, so naturally the example speaks of how snow appears to us... Another example, e.g. "Snow is frozen water", would be about the nature of snow rather than its appearance. I am therefore not saying that things are like they appear, I am just taking an example which happened to be about how snow appears to us. It could have been about something else.

what is the exact nature of the "correspondence" in your theory? — Banno

Simple: The sentence ‘snow is white’ is true iff there is such a thing out there called "snow" by people, and iff that thing, when shed solar light on, generally appears white to people.

You said there existed alternatives to the correspondence view of truth. Are you now saying the opposite?

The expression found in the T-sentence; "P is true" is the same as P. The "...is true" is redundant.

See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ — Banno

This looks like more intellectual masturbation from self-asserted 'analytical' jesters. E.g. from your link:

‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white

No shit, Sherlock! This is exactly the correspondence view of truth, not an alternative to it. A sentence is true iff it corresponds to some reality out there...

Care to explain what that would be?

the fact that it was raining at that time and place does not depend on my having observed it. Of course it is also a fact that I observed it, but that is another matter it seems to me. — Janus

If you had not observed that rain, and nobody else did, would it still be a fact that it rained? A fact is not just supposed to be true, it is known to be true, accepted as truth by all reasonable people. And to be accepted as true it must be based on evidence.

You mean as in it is a fact that you made an accurate observation (or not)? — Janus

I mean that facts are accurate observations. This definition purposefully excludes theories, which aren't facts because they are always somewhat hypothetical.