Is there such a thing as a 'fact'?

[Mark1955]

If that's all you've got, I'll take the "win".

All those limited perceptions,you think you scored, you think the games over, you think winning matters.....

-- Updated 28 Aug 2015 15:09 to add the following --

My assumption neglected the possibility of "embeddedness in reality" peaking at certain scales and then scaling back to relative ephemera with increase of scale.

I'd suggest that like all communication systems the fewer steps needed to get the message to your consciousness the lower the risk of Chinese whispers.

[LuckyR]

If that's all you've got, I'll take the "win".

All those limited perceptions,you think you scored, you think the games over, you think winning matters.....

Actually not, though I can see I left the door open for you to think so, for which I apologize for being more difficult to understand than average. I just though it odd that of the numerous powerful arguments available to you, you chose the article you did.

[Mark1955]

(Nested quote removed.)

All those limited perceptions,you think you scored, you think the games over, you think winning matters.....

Actually not, though I can see I left the door open for you to think so, for which I apologize for being more difficult to understand than average. I just though it odd that of the numerous powerful arguments available to you, you chose the article you did.

Burn out, I'm trying to participate in too many threads at once and this one has sort of slipped to the perifery.

[Ambauer]

I like Greta's response. It kind of strikes a chord with my sympathies. I have some questions: Is it not a fact that you are reading my post right now? Aren't there more simple ideas that are facts? Like if You have one eyeball on the left side of your head, and an eyeball on the right side of your head, does that not mean that you have two eyeballs? Is this not a fact? Are logically valid and sound arguments facts? The classic, "Socrates is a human. Humans are mortal. Socrates is mortal." Is this not a fact? Maybe I'm complicating the question. I guess I could be convinced that things such as these aren't facts, but I Doubt it. Also, don't these baser ideas, like my example of the eyeball math, create the foundations for larger, more intricate facts, say higher level mathematics? I thought so.

[psyreporter]

What exactly is a fact? Would you say it's something we know with 100% certainty and if so, would you say that such a thing can only exist in theoretical mathematics or may it also extend to things such as history? i.e. when people say that 'this is a historical fact, you cannot deny it happened'.

Looking forward to your replies.

Materialists (physicalists) believe that scientific facts are of a special nature in comparison with common truth propositions. It is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism and the idea that facts obtain independent from a perspective (i.e. 'without philosophy').

An example of a user on this forum.

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Truth propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not.

Facts in no way depend on any declarations or naming.

I'm an atheist.

I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief? It is merely the scientific method (a philosophy) that provides a qualitative differentiator, which is recognizable, but which remains questionable.

A philosophical method is a perspective based on truth conditions. Truth conditions of a perspective on reality are questionable just like the truth conditions of a proposition.

In the case of scientific facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in 'the real world'. Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)

"actual world" will need to be established before scientific facts can be determined. "actual world" implies a perspective with truth conditions. One assumes that a certain "actuality" is applicable in time while that may not be correct.

In a time span of 1000 years it may be that 99% of the facts remain the same but there is no theoretical ground for the idea that facts are intrinsically different from truths in time. It follows that one cannot pose that facts are intrinsically different from truths. Facts differ only on the basis of assumed qualitative value in relation to the human.

While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question is if the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that has profound implications.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with for example eugenics on nature, it would become important.

[psyreporter]

I like Greta's response. It kind of strikes a chord with my sympathies. I have some questions: Is it not a fact that you are reading my post right now? Aren't there more simple ideas that are facts? Like if You have one eyeball on the left side of your head, and an eyeball on the right side of your head, does that not mean that you have two eyeballs? Is this not a fact? Are logically valid and sound arguments facts? The classic, "Socrates is a human. Humans are mortal. Socrates is mortal." Is this not a fact? Maybe I'm complicating the question. I guess I could be convinced that things such as these aren't facts, but I Doubt it. Also, don't these baser ideas, like my example of the eyeball math, create the foundations for larger, more intricate facts, say higher level mathematics? I thought so.

The certainty quality of a fact would be at question, when compared with common truth propositions. How can it be said that the mentioned facts remain the same in time? If not, then the certainty quality has been disproved and one could merely use a dogmatic belief to hold on to it.

To answer your question: no, it would not be wise to use the examples of the qualitative nature of facts within a certain scope of time as a foundation for (a belief in the certain nature of) larger, more intricate facts. When certainty isn't possible, one is obliged to maintain an open mind and consider the nature of facts questionable (as part of a perspective, i.e. a product of philosophy that can be questioned in time).

[psyreporter]

There are indications that the history of 'physical reality' can be changed in the future. This would imply that the past 'actual world' on which facts are based can physically change in time.

Pigeon paradox reveals cosmic connections
Post-selection links any two particles every time their quantum properties are measured, no matter where they are in the universe. In other words, all particles everywhere could be linked, provided they have been post-selected in some way. “Is that mind-blowing or is that mind-blowing?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... nnections/

This would indicate that even in the case that a conscious observer looks at measured information 'after the fact', it still can have had an influence on the measurement, and thus, change 'the real world' on which facts have been based in the past.

This is just an example of what is possible and what might happen when one would hold a dogmatic belief in the certain nature of facts.

[psyreporter]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

In the sense that it would exist by a mere perspective and that the presumed certainty quality that is assigned to facts cannot be said to be valid in time.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with for example eugenics on nature, it would become important.

The question whether scientific facts posses of a quality that makes them intrinsically different from truths is very important.

[Sy Borg]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

In the sense that it would exist by a mere perspective and that the presumed certainty quality that is assigned to facts cannot be said to be valid in time.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with for example eugenics on nature, it would become important.

The question whether scientific facts posses of a quality that makes them intrinsically different from truths is very important.

However, we cannot dispute the existence of the Earth because that's the only reason this conversation could happen. Ditto computers and the internet, which make this discussion possible.

We cannot sit on a chair and claim it is not actually real unless we go down the hard idealist route of claiming that nothing is real, Strawberry Fields forever.

[Vita]

I think true facts are created. For instance, take the fact that we are “breathing”. There is no way to disprove this because the word itself was created to describe this specific process.

[psyreporter]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

In the sense that it would exist by a mere perspective and that the presumed certainty quality that is assigned to facts cannot be said to be valid in time.
...
The question whether scientific facts posses of a quality that makes them intrinsically different from truths is very important.

However, we cannot dispute the existence of the Earth because that's the only reason this conversation could happen. Ditto computers and the internet, which make this discussion possible.

While it is possible to argue that one would be obliged to follow a hard idealist route, it could also be demanded

We cannot sit on a chair and claim it is not actually real unless we go down the hard idealist route of claiming that nothing is real, Strawberry Fields forever.

What is argued is that the presumed certainty that Earth or a chair exists is only valid within the scope of a perspective (e.g. philosophy) and that by definition, such a situation would now allow one to claim that facts possess of a special qualitative nature that would make them different from truths. Facts only hold qualitative value compared to common truths relative to a human perspective.

My previous post is applicable for details:

Materialists (physicalists) believe that scientific facts are of a special nature in comparison with common truths. It is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism and the idea that facts obtain independent from a perspective (i.e. 'without philosophy').

An example of a user on this forum.

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Truth propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not.

Facts in no way depend on any declarations or naming.

I'm an atheist.

I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief? It is merely the scientific method (a philosophy) that provides a qualitative differentiator, which is recognizable, but which remains questionable.

A philosophical method is a perspective based on truth conditions. Truth conditions of a perspective on reality are questionable just like the truth conditions of a proposition.

In the case of scientific facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in 'the real world'. Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)

"actual world" will need to be established before scientific facts can be determined. "actual world" implies a perspective with truth conditions. One assumes that a certain "actuality" is applicable in time while that may not be correct.

In a time span of 1000 years it may be that 99% of the facts remain the same but there is no theoretical ground for the idea that facts are intrinsically different from truths in time. It follows that one cannot pose that facts are intrinsically different from truths. Facts differ only on the basis of assumed qualitative value in relation to the human.

While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question is if the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that has profound implications.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with for example eugenics on nature, it would become important.

[Vita]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

In the sense that it would exist by a mere perspective and that the presumed certainty quality that is assigned to facts cannot be said to be valid in time.
...
The question whether scientific facts posses of a quality that makes them intrinsically different from truths is very important.

However, we cannot dispute the existence of the Earth because that's the only reason this conversation could happen. Ditto computers and the internet, which make this discussion possible.

While it is possible to argue that one would be obliged to follow a hard idealist route, it could also be demanded

We cannot sit on a chair and claim it is not actually real unless we go down the hard idealist route of claiming that nothing is real, Strawberry Fields forever.

What is argued is that the presumed certainty that Earth or a chair exists is only valid within the scope of a perspective (e.g. philosophy) and that by definition, such a situation would now allow one to claim that facts possess of a special qualitative nature that would make them different from truths. Facts only hold qualitative value compared to common truths relative to a human perspective.

My previous post is applicable for details:

Materialists (physicalists) believe that scientific facts are of a special nature in comparison with common truths. It is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism and the idea that facts obtain independent from a perspective (i.e. 'without philosophy').

An example of a user on this forum.

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Truth propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not.

Facts in no way depend on any declarations or naming.

I'm an atheist.

I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief? It is merely the scientific method (a philosophy) that provides a qualitative differentiator, which is recognizable, but which remains questionable.

A philosophical method is a perspective based on truth conditions. Truth conditions of a perspective on reality are questionable just like the truth conditions of a proposition.

In the case of scientific facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in 'the real world'. Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)

"actual world" will need to be established before scientific facts can be determined. "actual world" implies a perspective with truth conditions. One assumes that a certain "actuality" is applicable in time while that may not be correct.

In a time span of 1000 years it may be that 99% of the facts remain the same but there is no theoretical ground for the idea that facts are intrinsically different from truths in time. It follows that one cannot pose that facts are intrinsically different from truths. Facts differ only on the basis of assumed qualitative value in relation to the human.

While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question is if the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that has profound implications.

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a ‘certainty factor’ isn’t at question, when it concerns the usage of the idea as a guiding principle, such as is the case with for example eugenics on nature, it would become important.

Look at Latin words such as Audire. The word was invented to describe one of our senses. No matter what changes scientifically, we will still be hearing because that is what the word describes.

[Sy Borg]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

In the sense that it would exist by a mere perspective and that the presumed certainty quality that is assigned to facts cannot be said to be valid in time.
...
The question whether scientific facts posses of a quality that makes them intrinsically different from truths is very important.

However, we cannot dispute the existence of the Earth because that's the only reason this conversation could happen. Ditto computers and the internet, which make this discussion possible.

While it is possible to argue that one would be obliged to follow a hard idealist route, it could also be demanded

We cannot sit on a chair and claim it is not actually real unless we go down the hard idealist route of claiming that nothing is real, Strawberry Fields forever.

What is argued is that the presumed certainty that Earth or a chair exists is only valid within the scope of a perspective (e.g. philosophy) and that by definition, such a situation would now allow one to claim that facts possess of a special qualitative nature that would make them different from truths. Facts only hold qualitative value compared to common truths relative to a human perspective.

Yes, scientific facts are of a different ilk to opinions. I agree with Terrapin Station.

https://socratic.org/questions/how-does ... s-a-theory

Opinions/perspectives are relatively ephemeral because science is underpinned by an immense body of knowledge, painstakingly built, taking seriously the ideas of Greek philosophers who questioned the so-called realities decreed by religions/dictators.

Science starts with observation, leading to tentative opinions. This is the base level of so-called "truths" - that of a hypothesis. Then researchers then devise suitable tests. A non-scientific "truth-seeker" may at this stage conduct thought experiments to test their ideas (scientists often do this too). At this stage, truths and facts are not so different.

They diverge once researchers start conducting experiments - over and over, always testing in case they were wrong, as opposed to trying to prove they are right. Tests can be run many thousands of times and it is not until the repeatability is solidly established - that the predictions made by the hypothesis are reliable, that the scientists publish. By contrast, many "truth-seekers" have already made millions publishing their relatively untested ideas.

However, science has more work to do to establish its facts. Once the hypothesis is published, it needs to survive the intense scrutiny of numerous competitive and thorough peers, checking the minutiae everything for flaws. Others will conduct their own experiments, and slowly a consensus builds or fails to build. With enough consensus, the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Unlike many "truths", a theory too can be disproved if new information becomes available, usually due to improved technology.

I disagree. A fact is reality. The Earth had a solid reality long before philosophy, consciousness or even biological life.

4.5 billion years ago the Earth was still orbiting the Sun, impacting objects with its gravity. I do not see brute facts as having a "special qualitative nature" outside of their reliability. The person who believes in something contentious might present their ideas as "truths", but every court in the land is looking for better evidence than subjective viewpoints.

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief? It is merely the scientific method (a philosophy) that provides a qualitative differentiator, which is recognizable, but which remains questionable.

As above, a theory is not a dogma. If good enough empirical evidence exists, then the theory will be updated.

In the case of scientific facts, a truth condition is that facts are synthetic propositions predicated by existence in 'the real world'. Before one could consider this condition one will need to accept a certain truth about "reality" which is questionable.

If we deny the reality of our senses, then all bets are off. There is nothing we can know and the most simple-minded flat-Earther's ideas based on a YouTube video have the same value as that of someone who has studied Earth sciences for decades. If we deny reality, then we will be happy to catch a flight with a pilot who walked off the street and said, "Yep, I can fly that easy" and would not want a trained pilot.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there is no actual reality and the universe is just a giant, multi-faceted relativistic thought, nothing more. It makes no difference. The practicalities remain the same and base practicalities can't be validly ignored or downplayed.

In philosophy, a state of affairs, also known as a situation, is a way the actual world must be in order to make some given proposition about the actual world true; in other words, a state of affairs (situation) is a truth-maker, whereas a proposition is a truth-bearer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_ ... hilosophy)

"actual world" will need to be established before scientific facts can be determined. "actual world" implies a perspective with truth conditions. One assumes that a certain "actuality" is applicable in time while that may not be correct.

In a time span of 1000 years it may be that 99% of the facts remain the same but there is no theoretical ground for the idea that facts are intrinsically different from truths in time. It follows that one cannot pose that facts are intrinsically different from truths. Facts differ only on the basis of assumed qualitative value in relation to the human.

The difference between established facts and untested so-called truths is testability.

While repeatability of science provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question is if the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that has profound implications.

However, just as most philosophers draw on science, many scientists philosophise about their work. The siloing of these fields does not make them exclusive domains. Each field has a core interest - to better understand the nature of reality. Some aspects of reality are too inaccessible, fleeting, unpredictable or complex to test (at present), or doing so would be prohibitively expensive.

As long as people focus on the main game - trying to better understand the nature of reality, rather than trying to prove pre-existing assumptions - then I don't see an issue.

Sorry for breaking the post into pieces. Hopefully it's organised enough to make sense.

[Consul]

An excerpt from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) entry on "fact":

"* Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.  

* That which is of the nature of a fact; what has actually happened or is the case; truth attested by direct observation or authentic testimony; reality, matter of fact: a subject of discussion belonging to the domain of fact, as distinguished from matter of inference, of opinion, of law, etc.

* Often loosely used for: Something that is alleged to be, or conceivably might be, a 'fact'."

Here we have four different meanings of "fact":

1. A fact is what is the case/true.

2. A fact is what is known to be the case/true.

3. A fact is what is empirically (observationally) known to be the case/true.

4. A fact is what is allegedly the case/true.

As for meaning 4, the American Heritage Dictionary mentions "something believed to be true or real" as one meaning of "fact".

"Usage Note: Since the word "fact" means "a real occurrence, something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed", the phrases "true facts" and "real facts", as in "The true facts of the case may never be known", would seem to be redundant. But "fact" has a long history of use in the sense of "an allegation of fact" or "something that is believed to be true", as in this remark by union leader Albert Shanker: "This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong." This usage has led to the notion of "incorrect facts", which causes qualms among critics who insist that facts must be true. The usages, however, are often helpful in making distinctions or adding emphasis."

Source: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=fact

[Consul]

As for scientific facts:

"'[F]act' does not mean 'absolute certainty'. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

(Gould, Stephen Jay. Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1983. pp. 254-5)