The difference between Truth and Fact

BraveHat · Post by **BraveHat** » March 9th, 2017, 11:54 pm

I'm just interested in hearing your points of view on these two terms. Specifically, if you perceive a significant difference in meaning between them, and if so, what distinguishes one from the other.

To me, facts are a sub-category of truths, but not all truths are facts. A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true, whereas a truth is something that is true regardless of whether or not it can be demonstrated. For example, it may be that no one will ever be able to demonstrate the existence of God. But if God exists, then the proposition "God exists" will remain true, even if no one ever demonstrates it. Obviously, we live in a world in which people believe that proposition, but EVEN if no one ever believes it, it can still be true. The proposition "God exists", however, is not a fact until it can be demonstrated.

Eaglerising · Post by **Eaglerising** » March 19th, 2017, 5:35 am

The more you examine "truth," the move elusive it becomes. It can even be ambiguous. Not all truths are the same is one example of that. What is true to one person may not be true to another. Truth is an evolving perspective is another. This elusiveness of truth be seen when you compare it to "what is," which is reality. Unfortunately, "what is" ceases to be what it IS the moment you attempt to define it or describe it.

Facts have no relationship to truth. Basically, a fact is data. It doesn't matter if a fact can be proved or not. I say this because a fact is not the described. A fact is a word or words that represent something other than itself. The word tree is not a physical tree, but rather a symbol representing a tree.

All this becomes more confusing or complicated due to the dichotomy of life. A dichotomy divides what is whole into two opposing things, which can be equally accurate and inaccurate. For example, is pro-life more truthful than abortion or vice versa? On the other hand, both perspectives are dealing with facts.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » March 19th, 2017, 6:51 pm

The truth can't be contradictory.
The truth exists independently of facts.
Facts do require empirical evidence.
Theories require facts.
Theories can be thought of as true theories and in everyday usage it's reasonable to say a proven theory is true. But getting to the meat of the matter theories are not the truth. The most proven theory in the world which could be held up as the most truthful thing mankind knows is a theory. It can be added to and refined and become more true, but at no point (yet) could we say it was the truth.
Having said that when a human says something is true then theories are the best we can possibly do.

Consul · Post by **Consul** » March 19th, 2017, 7:47 pm

A truth is a true item that can play the role of a truth-bearer such as a proposition, a statement, a declarative sentence, a belief, a judgment, an opinion, an assertion. Let's assume that the fundamental truth-bearers are propositions, and that truths are true propositions. There are those who identify facts with truths (e.g. Gottlob Frege), and there are those who don't. If facts aren't true propositions, they are actual or obtaining states of affairs. In this case, truths aren't facts; they express or represent facts. (The situation is actually more complicated, because it is arguably not the case that for every truth there is a corresponding fact.)

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 6:53 pm to add the following --

BraveHat wrote:To me, facts are a sub-category of truths, but not all truths are facts. A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true, whereas a truth is something that is true regardless of whether or not it can be demonstrated. For example, it may be that no one will ever be able to demonstrate the existence of God. But if God exists, then the proposition "God exists" will remain true, even if no one ever demonstrates it. Obviously, we live in a world in which people believe that proposition, but EVEN if no one ever believes it, it can still be true. The proposition "God exists", however, is not a fact until it can be demonstrated.

I think no truth is a fact; but even if "truth" and "fact" are synonyms, there is a difference between a verified or known truth/fact and a unverified or unknown one. For verifiedness or knownness is no essential aspect of the concept of a truth/fact.

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 8:58 pm to add the following --

Eaglerising wrote:Facts have no relationship to truth. Basically, a fact is data. It doesn't matter if a fact can be proved or not. I say this because a fact is not the described. A fact is a word or words that represent something other than itself. The word tree is not a physical tree, but rather a symbol representing a tree.

Facts are either truths (true propositions/statements) themselves or truthmakers of truths (states of affairs). If the former, "untrue/false fact" is a contradiction in terms; and if the latter, facts are neither true nor false, since states of affairs aren't the kind of entities that can have a truth-value.

If facts are equated with truths and we want to have a single word for known facts/truths, we can use "data". Data qua known facts/truths are pieces of information; and since knowledge entails truth, "information" must mean "veridical information" and not "misinformation" or "disinformation" here. As Fred Dretske says, "if everything I say to you is false, then I have given you no information," but mere representational content. That is, data qua known facts/truths are representations which are not only meaningful but also truthful.

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 9:02 pm to add the following --

Eduk wrote:The truth exists independently of facts.

No, it doesn't, because what is true and what isn't true depend on what is the case and what is not the case.

Eduk wrote:Facts do require empirical evidence.

No, they don't, because facts and knowledge of them are different things.

Eaglerising · Post by **Eaglerising** » March 19th, 2017, 10:52 pm

The previous posts and those that follow this one illustrate how elusive and ambiguous the word "truth" is.

Facts are commonly agreed upon and accepted data (knowledge). Accuracy and authentic pertain to facts.

On the other hand, truth is an unique and evolving perspective pertaining to understanding as opposed to knowledge. The quest for truth is philosophy.

Consul · Post by **Consul** » March 19th, 2017, 11:16 pm

Eaglerising wrote:Facts are commonly agreed upon and accepted data (knowledge). Accuracy and authentic pertain to facts.
On the other hand, truth is an unique and evolving perspective pertaining to understanding as opposed to knowledge. The quest for truth is philosophy

You're wrong insofar as there is nothing epistemological or psychological about the metaphysical or ontological concepts of a fact and of a truth.

-- Updated March 19th, 2017, 11:49 pm to add the following --

Consul wrote:If facts are equated with truths and we want to have a single word for known facts/truths, we can use "data". Data qua known facts/truths are pieces of information; and since knowledge entails truth, "information" must mean "veridical information" and not "misinformation" or "disinformation" here. As Fred Dretske says, "if everything I say to you is false, then I have given you no information," but mere representational content. That is, data qua known facts/truths are representations which are not only meaningful but also truthful.

I made a mistake insofar as there's a difference between the knowing and the known; so a datum as a known (veridical/factual) proposition, i.e. as that what is known, is not itself knowledge or (a piece of) information (with these conceived as mental states called "propositional attitudes"). For there is a difference between there being a true proposition (a truth/fact) and my (mental state of) knowing or being informed about it(s truth).

Eaglerising · Post by **Eaglerising** » March 20th, 2017, 5:49 am

"Right" and "wrong" pertain to facts (knowledge). Right and wrong have no relationship or connection with truth. Truth exists outside the field of of knowledge. Truth is about understanding as opposed to the accumulation or comprehension of knowledge.
Truth is an unique and evolving understanding of "what is", which cannot be found in the known due to the dichotomy of life.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » March 20th, 2017, 6:19 am

I would like to see some examples given which may help to illustrate the points people are making.
To my mind the dictionary definition of truth and the everyday meaning of the word is that that which is true is in accordance with fact and facts are proved using empirical evidence. I'm not suggesting that is the be and end all of the definition of the word truth, but it seems a reasonable starting point? It is often the case that the more tightly you try to define a word the more slippery it gets.
So for example my car has a single main body colour. If there is a form asking for the colour of my car I put black. I don't put 'unknown as what is the truth?'. Now you could say it reflects light at a certain frequency which if averaged across the body of the car as a whole and taken at the macro level would be perceived as being black by the majority of humans. So you could say the form is really asking what is the consensus of opinion as to the colour of your car. What would be reasonable to say was the colour of your car. If you made an insurance claim what would they say was the colour of your car. You could get into a philosophical debate and say what colour is my car if it's in a forest and no one can see it. But most people would say it's black, what's wrong with you?

If you give a non orthodox definition of the word truth then I for one would appreciate some examples so I can better understand the points being made.

Eaglerising · Post by **Eaglerising** » March 20th, 2017, 9:11 am

The confusion regarding truth lies in that there are two types of truth. What is commonly called truth and defined in dictionaries pertains to knowledge instead of understanding "what is." People have been wrongly convicted of a crime based up facts and/or circumstantial evidence. And sometimes, juries ignore overwhelming facts as they did with O.J. Simpson. Neither of these examples were about the truth, discovered the truth, or revealed the truth.

Seeing this form is about philosophy and philosophy is the quest for truth, I defined a higher or different truth which has no relationship to facts or knowledge, but about understanding "what is".

Science is a tool for dealing with facts and knowledge. Philosophy is a tool use to understand "what is" such as man's relationship to life, the meaning of life, ethics, etc.

-- Updated March 20th, 2017, 8:30 am to add the following --

Facts and knowledge can be defined, where as "what is" cannot be defined. "What is" has no relationship to words, labels or images. Therefore you have to approach "what is" from the unknown, a total detachment from the known. Truth is your understanding of "what is" which is unique, personal, and evolving.

Override · Post by **Override** » March 29th, 2017, 1:40 am

Can anybody give me an example for a truth?

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » March 29th, 2017, 6:40 pm

Can anybody give me an example for a truth?

Do you mean an absolute objective truth in the harshest possible philosophical sense which would be unarguable and transcend all human limitations?
Or do you mean the practical and applicable meaning of the word?

Atreyu · Post by **Atreyu** » March 30th, 2017, 4:54 pm

The OP, by his post, reveals that he already understands the difference between these two terms...

Override · Post by **Override** » March 31st, 2017, 1:46 am

Eduk wrote:
Can anybody give me an example for a truth?
Do you mean an absolute objective truth in the harshest possible philosophical sense which would be unarguable and transcend all human limitations?
Or do you mean the practical and applicable meaning of the word?

I mean the first one.

"an absolute objective truth in the harshest possible philosophical sense which would be unarguable and transcend all human limitations"

For example : "We can not prove in any way God exists" is this the truth or is this a fact ?

Dissimulation · Post by **Dissimulation** » April 1st, 2017, 9:35 am

the subject of truth as a rational, coherent understanding derived through methodical critical reasoning and available relevant empirical data (if applicable, may conflict with particular metaphysical views). Facts are a representation of truth applied to empirical data. This suggests that truth is subject to becoming untruth through development of valid reasoning and empirical observations.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » April 5th, 2017, 4:29 am

I mean the first one.

"an absolute objective truth in the harshest possible philosophical sense which would be unarguable and transcend all human limitations"

For example : "We can not prove in any way God exists" is this the truth or is this a fact ?

I'm sorry but no you can't transcend all human limitations. We aren't blessed with a one to one perception of reality. If madness is being out of touch with reality then all humans are mad to a greater or lesser extent.
This unfortunately leaves you with the everyday meaning of the word.
This does not then mean that all ideas are equal and therefore I have the moral right to believe anything. It means you need to be aware of your limitations and that rather than believe anything you need to be more careful and only believe certain things in certain ways.