Talk:Fact/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Fact. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request on 29 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add soft link for Verifiability in definition (first sentence) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. 115.112.231.107 (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done. The article WP:verifiability is about verifiability in the strictly limited context of Wikipedia policy. This is a general article. - DVdm (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is difficult to understand

Thank you for trying to tackle this difficult-to-accurate-define word. Those of us who obsess over this particular word would appreciate a more concise, easy-to-follow explanation. Since the word has minor variation of a basic definition, could you please re-write this article in concise, easy-to-understand wording? For example, could you provide the definition in fact as a gauge as truth versus fact as a gauge of being provable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.64.4 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of controversy in the creation of this article, and it seems to me to have achieved an admirable combination of accuracy and accessibility. Can you point out a particular sentence you find unclear? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that an example can be found in the section "Fact in Science":

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.[20] (For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)

The parenthesized expression certainly doesn't seem to me to be an example, although it has been sitting there for several years. If it said "for a counterexample" I might understand it. I might also add that the cited article is certainly not easy to understand.

Evolution cannot be described as "an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory". It certainly is a hypothesis or theory, and most ordinary people would accept that it is a 'fact' in the informal meaning of the term which is that it is so well demonstrated that it is impossible to disbelieve it. But that is not the meaning of the word as it is used here. Chris55 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead (again)

leaving "truth" out of the first sentence because it is somewhat tautological here

All correct definitions are "tautological", if you want to look at it that way.

removing "something that is the case" from first sentence. It's clumsy, superfluous, and redundant in addition to "something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

These definitions do not amount to the same thing. Something can be the case but unverifiable.

1Z 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophers divide facts into states of affairs and events - they certainly do not consider them to be somethings. But how pedantic do we need to be in an introduction? I think we shoudl let it be, and focus on the body of the article. Banno 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have missed the point. An even can occur (or a state of affairs can obtain) without being verifiable). 1Z 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Or did you miss my point? Having sat through the two-years-plus-long debate on the introduction to truth, I'm quite aware that this can be the hardest part of the article to write. While I agree that the present intro sucks, my advice is to leave it until the remainder of the article is in better shape. That way you will have a firmer basis for whatever content you wish to place there. (Of course, this advice will be ignored, leading to a protracted discussion on a non-issue...) Banno 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't leave it as you found it...1Z 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. Banno 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact as truth and fact as something that is the case were taken out of the LeadPara because it made the sentence clumsy, not because they are not true, verifiable statements of fact, which need to go back in at some point to basic definitions.

If you think they should be moved rather than deleted, why not do so in the same edit? Iyt It is generally hard to see what you are seeking to achieve. with your edits. You "stylistic" changes change the content as well. 1Z 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A fact is "truth'; ^[1] and a fact is "something that is the case";^[2] — (OED, 2nd Ed. page 2 million?)

—Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OED Cite: If you're going by the same OED edition that is already cited in the article, the relevant definitions are: 1) "something ... that is actually the case" (defn 4a, p. 651 [already referenced in the article]); and 2) "truth attested by direct observation" (defn 6a, p. 651 [already referenced in the article]).

Note that there does not appear to be a definition reflecting "fact as truth" as indicated here (by some) in this discussion (fact as truth regardless of whether it is verified or observed). That's not to say that the definition is invalid, but close scrutiny of OED does not appear to directly substantiate it, thus justifying an alternate citation. dr.ef.tymac 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition was in the reference given, Chamber's dictionary. I don't why you would think "it is not in the OED" mean "it is no anywhere". 1Z 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Banno's previous point is the reason why I preferred the formulation ["that which is"] instead of ["something"] for the lead paragraph. Nevertheless, I've refrained from tossing in the .02 because, frankly, it's pretty odd to see so much "diminishing-returns tinkering" going on with the lead. The way it is now seems (stylistically if not ontologically) quite passable. I'm still puzzled as to why these refinements and tinkering are not suitable for the various subsections of the article. dr.ef.tymac 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of simplifying the lead, when the lead states that "fact" is defined differently in different contexts. It creates a slightly contradictory impression. 1Z 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent, but there are difficulties that justify this compromise. As long as the lead is not blatantly incorrect, it seems entirely appropriate for it to consist of little more than a "birds eye view" definition of the concept, especially for an article such as this. It seems better to leave the detailed analysis to the various subsections of the article. dr.ef.tymac 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: This is just to note that the latest revision of the lead (as completed by User:Kenosis) looks (to me anyway) to be quite acceptable and even close to optimal for what this article calls for. Unless any further tinkering clearly and obviously addresses a compelling need for refinement, it's likely that any further changes to the lead will be contested as unwarranted and unhelpful. dr.ef.tymac 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is at least workable, in that it contains nothing that is objectionable and allows for some development. Strictly it should contain a comment on fact in law and fact in psychology, since these are also included in the article. Banno 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If fact is verified by experience, the shouldn't fact be define by what is apparently the case (not actually)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.170.10 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

References

[1]
OED_2
[2]
OED_2

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

External links modified

can't edit - Pascal Engel

Post-truth

Rick Norwood, I've found you to be a valuable contributor in the past, even as I haven't always agreed with you. If I'd realized it was your section, I might have chosen a different edit summary, and I'm sorry it was so harsh.

That said, I don't really retract any of the content of what I said, even if I might have chosen a gentler style. First, this is the fact article, not the truth article, and the discussion is about "post-truth", not "post-fact" (as an aside, the article is better than it used to be, but I still think it could benefit from explicit discussion of how the notion of "fact" is different from the notion of "truth", or if it isn't, then it should just be merged into truth). The source is a single polemical essay. The "Nixon" example doesn't really make sense, because there is essentially no disagreement on whether Nixon was impeached (he was not) or whether he would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned (he almost certainly would have been, according to the judgment of people who know these things better than I do). --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I am not offended. I do think one contention of the post-truth movement is that there are no facts, or rather, that facts are what the strongest person says they are. This is an idea that goes back at least to Plato. "Right is the interest of the stronger party." Of course, old Socrates knocks that down.

The "Nixon was impeached." example comes from the current debate in the US Senate, during which Trump's defenders have repeatedly used "Nixon's impeachment" as a president. I should not have used an example from current events. The flat-earthers would be a better example. But I don't have any plans to reintroduce the paragraph at this time, and if, when things have cooled down, I do decide we need something on the subject of a post-truth world, I'll be sure to take a more balanced view, and provide more references. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic, but it's not only Trump's defenders who seem to be confused on the point. I saw a video on CNN of a figure from the Watergate era (Dean maybe?) commenting on Dershowitz's argument, and saying that Dershowitz "had just un-impeached Nixon". I took this to be a criticism of the argument.

I think the "Nixon impeachment" stuff is not so much post-truth as it is failing to be careful about historical details. Nixon was not impeached, but the outcome was much the same, and in the heat of a current argument it's not uncommon for people to make mistakes on the finer points. --Trovatore (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding " currently accepted standards "

Evidence vs fact vs truth

Opinion: EVIDENCE (not FACTS) gets verified. If the EVIDENCE is "deemed" to be TRUE, it's accepted as FACT; but the FACT can still be FALSE due to the limitations of accuracy in the method used to verify the evidence. Therefore TRUTH is independent of FACT.

Bases of the opinion: There is an article here in Wikipedia about Akkad the city. Apparently, the city's actual existence has been recently confirmed (archaeology) to be a historical FACT.

Before this confirmation, the city was recorded in the Hebrew Bible; but I guess academics have always categorised it as a MYTH or PSEUDOSCIENCE. But today, it can be concluded that while there were indeed no FACTS to verify the TRUTH which we now know, the existence of this city was always TRUE. It would have been TRUE even if it wasn't recorded even in the Bible.

Another example is that of Tetrapodophis i.e. I have always noted that the Bible story of cursing the snake to crawl on it's belly connotates a snake which had legs.

It follows therefore that the first sentence of this article is POSSIBLY wrong because, evidently, things have occurred in the world, some of them are even recorded in writing, but academics have not been able to verify them yet; so they remain myths and pseudoscience IN THE ACADEMIC'S WORLD. Some of the things will possibly never be verified and they will always be myths and pseudoscience IN THE ACADEMIC'S WORLD.

Now, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, pseudoscience and myth means "without verifiable EVIDENCE; or lacking FACTS. It follows therefore that the TRUTH does not need the existence of FACTS i.e. pseudoscience or myth doesn't mean FALSEHOOD; but only mean, not a FACT; even though it can still be the TRUTH.

The first sentence of this article therefore best suits the definition of TRUTH, rather than FACT.

It think Paragraph 2 of the Etymology and Usage is the one statement (if not only) that captures the definition of FACT "almost" perfectly i.e. EVIDENCE is presented if a matter is under discussion. If the EVIDENCE is "deemed" to be TRUE, then it's accepted as a FACT. NB: "deemed" rightly makes FACT a PERCEPTION of the parties comprising the panel of the discussion; which PERCEPTION is limited by the accuracy of their METHOD of verification. But the TRUTH is independent of this exercise; hence the FACT has the possibility of ending up being FALSE.

Before someone's objectiveness is blinded by a misconception that I'm arguing for religion, here is another example that has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible; but a Wikipedia article:

"Ordinary matter is composed of atoms, once presumed to be elementary particles—atom meaning "unable to cut" in Greek—although the atom's existence remained controversial until about 1910, as some leading physicists regarded molecules as mathematical illusions, and matter as ultimately composed of energy."

So, before 1910, Science (confirmed via FACTS) had arrived at a FALSE conclusion; because FACTS and TRUTH do not equate.

If my discussion above is correct, then the entire article POSSIBLY needs revision. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many, many misunderstandings in your commentary. Answers in order of appearance: evidence is what one uses to establish the truth of a proposition. The evidence itself is not what's primarily under evaluation. Then, you confound the ontic with the epistemic. Truth is semantic, facts are ontic. This means that if a city existed, that is a fact. The existence of the city is not true, facts cannot be true or false, because truth is predicated only of semantical entities, such as propositions, sentences, claims, utterances, etc. What would be true would be the proposition claiming that the city existed. But the past existence of the city would be a fact. It doesn't matter if archeologists never found out. One thing is for something to be a fact, and a different matter is for it to be accepted as fact (again, the ontic and the epistemic). Facts are not dependent on perception. In a nutshell, yes, the first sentence is correct, and a definition given by one of the greatest philosophers who have studied these matters. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You have used very big words; but I'm not convinced they supercede the simple ones.

There's another article I read recently that the FACT established regarding the date of the earliest life form on earth has turned out FALSE because the EVIDENCE was misunderstood - it was actually algae instead of animal tissue. So, the EVIDENCE has not changed (the algae specimen) the fact has changed (the date for the confirmed earliest life form on earth. But the TRUTH? We now possibly have it; and maybe not still. But it still remains that if life form did not simultaneously appear with the earth, then, a true date exists. We can only hope to one day FACTUALLY confirm it.

The TRUTH is the bottom line; which we may know or not. The TRUTH exists regardless of anyone’s knowledge of it. e.g. in an ideal life, all we are interested in is the answer to the this critical question:"is it TRUE or is it FALSE?".

Now to get the answer to the above critical question, we first establish the FACTS; by evaluating the EVIDENCE. But sometimes the established FACTS are not TRUE, because either the EVIDENCE is misinterpreted, or applied where it does not belong.

Vusi Dlamini (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You are simply still confusing claims (propositions) with facts. Writing words in all caps doesn’t make your ideas better. An establishment of a proposition as expressing a fact is what can be mistaken. Facts of course change, but the fact that something happened the way it did doesn’t change. You are still misunderstanding what a fact is. You are talking about scientific-facts, not about facts. In your example, what (allegedly) changed was an established scientific belief, a scientific-fact, not a fact. But there is no point in repeating myself if you don’t understand what you have called the “big words”. If you want to understand what I’m telling you, you need to understand the difference between states of affairs and claims about states of affairs. Your idea that truth doesn’t change is well guided, but only claims, not states of affairs, are true. You say that “sometimes the established facts are not true”, well, facts are never true, it is claims that are true or false. Saying that a fact is true is committing a category error, like saying that the number 3 is green. You just need to apply your idea of unchanging truth to states of affairs and you will get what a fact is: the actual state of affairs, which doesn’t change when our beliefs change. Your ideas are OK, but you are conflating the meanings of some words and you need more philosophical refining, as you are failing to differentiate the ontic from the epistemic. Cheers. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

An occurrence in the real world

I suggest that we reexamine the first sentence of this article as I feel it's not as precise as it could be. I would say that a "fact" is "an expression of information which describes something understood to be extant". For example, is it a "fact" that glass marbles are smooth? Well that would depend on how closely your viewpoint zooms in, would it not? And if the marble just sits there, and we say nothing about it, are there any "facts" about that marble? I would say, no there are not. There are attributes, and we can know them, but we only know them via the means of facts - and we can only correctly know them via the means of true facts. Is the Earth round? It certainly is, far more so than it's flat; but it's certainly not precisely round, is it? So would be it be a true fact to say that the Earth is round? If we use "round" in a general sense, yes; but not if we use it in a precisely true sense. For example, here's a reliable source https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/earth-round.html which calls the Earth an "irregularly shaped ellipsoid". Thus, my point from an editing suggestion perspective, is that we need to put a bit more effort into debating the first sentence in this article for the simple reason that it establishes a foundation, which due to it's limitations, is simply not true enough to properly introduce the subject of the article, which is our understanding of the word "fact". Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This does not seem to me to be an improvement. In any case, you would need a reference. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A reference is needed to open a discussion? Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As I made clear above above, the first sentence in this article needs improvement. And, since I posted about this last time, I've looked into it further. I feel that definition we are using in this first sentence, which is only backed up by a citation to a "Philosophical dictionary", does not properly introduce the term; as it fails to set the table for the most prevalent uses of the word "fact", which are in science and law. In legal usage, a "fact" is an assertion which is offered as true to the court; and it's presumed to be true unless rebutted. But the widest usage of the word "fact" is in science and for that, I've got a good reference:

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. https://ncse.ngo/definitions-fact-theory-and-law-scientific-work

As I see it, we should not be opening this article with the sentence "A fact is an occurrence in the real world" as science cannot even agree what the "real word" even is. For example: Is empty space even empty? Not according to some, it's not. But some things which appear to occur there cannot all be verified as actually occurring there; so do they occur or do they not? Simply put, it's an editorial mistake to open this article with a thin gruel philosophical conjecture about the meaning of a word which is used to describe items of truth. It would be much better to simply remove that sentence from the lede and relocate it to the philosophy section of the article. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing the epistemic with the ontic level. A fact is an occurrence in the real world. You do not need to know which is the real world in order for you to know that a fact is an occurrence in the real world. So the fact that scientists disagree on details about what the real world is like is irrelevant here. The definition you proposed is for scientific-fact, not for fact, and even in that case is using the word “observation”ambiguously, as the observation itself in the literal sense is obviously not the fact itself. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description vs. first sentence conflict

Hey, all! We’ve currently got a conflict between the short article description and the first sentence of the lead and I want to run this by everyone before making any changes. The short description is: “Statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence.” The first sentence of the lead is: “A fact is an occurrence in the real world.”

The first sentence of the lead is more accurate (although I may want to come back to this sometime later, since it seems to be conflating facts, states of affairs, and events, which contemporary metaphysicians regard as separate, but related, ontological categories)—facts are components of reality itself.

The short description, however, is talking about propositions (I’m assuming this is what is meant by “statement”). Propositions are ABOUT facts, but are not themselves facts, and, per the standard Correspondence Theory of Truth, propositions are true iff they correspond to facts (consistency is an entirely separate notion, as any proposition that doesn’t conflict with the facts is consistent with them, but that doesn’t mean that the proposition corresponds to the facts). And then there’s the issue of proof (i.e., justification), which is confusing things further in the short description. Whether a proposition is fully justified is independent of whether the proposition is true, and, as noted, a true proposition is not the same thing as the fact that is described by the true proposition.

These may seem like minor distinctions, but they’re hugely important in metaphysics and epistemology. Facts are not propositions, justified propositions are not true propositions. I can give a bunch of cites to intro metaphysics and epistemology texts if anyone needs. The SEP’s articles on these issues do a great job, already, though.

Before I propose anything re: an update to the short description, are these any questions about these distinctions or about anything else I’ve said? I think all of our great philosophically trained editors will be on-board here, but just making sure. Thanksforhelping (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the purpose of short descriptions is very limited. It's really mostly about making sure mobile users have some very broad context; it doesn't have to be a precise definition. For this article I think an empty short description would actually be fine. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I’ll remove the short description for now, then. Happy to talk more about it if someone decides to revert.Thanksforhelping (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

From Cambridge English Dictionary: "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information" From Dictionary.com:

something that actually exists; reality; truth:
something known to exist or to have happened:
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

From Lexico: "A thing that is known or proved to be true." The present "A fact is an occurrence in the real world" is both wrong and unsuported. There are arguably facts that are not about the real world, such as that Vader was Luke's father. I sugest "A fact is something that is true". Banno (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Your analysis and recommendation are both sound. See my attempts above. They have thus far failed; largely because several editors here are wedded to the abstruse and invalid usage "occurrence in the real world". A fact is an item of information which is understood to be true by the person presenting it and which in good faith, is taken by others to be true, unless disproved. This "occurrence in the real world" stuff is meaningless. Does a "fact" exist when a tree goes down in the forest and no one hears it, sees it or knows about it? No, there are not any facts until people arrive on the scene. No facts exist regarding that downed tree until reasonable people via skilled assessment, examine the toppled tree and determine that yes, it did merely fall; rather than was knocked down by a landslide or was felled by a woodsman. And BTW, the existence of woodsmen, is why we use the word "felled tree" instead of "fallen tree" when such workers are involved. A felled tree is deliberately brought down by a lumberjack; but until you examine the tree which is on the ground, you don't know what the facts are as to which means got it there. Facts exist on the information layer, not on the layer of the 'real' which is what we describe via facts. And for the record, human perception, reasoning and understanding simply is not powerful enough, precise enough or effective enough to exactly assess all aspects of the "real world". Thus, human knowledge is always an imperfect characterization of the "real world". It's like Zeno's Arrow. Humanity's knowledge gets closer and closer over time, but we never quite get there. Facts are the crutch we use to know the "real world", they do not occur in the world; they are meta, they are information about the world. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"A fact is something that is true"; still inadequate, an interum improvement. Banno (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Some alternates: "A fact is what is the case"; A fact is a true statement".Banno (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to demonstrate that ultimately, a "fact" is a didactic rhetorical device, the sole purpose of which is to establish a common understanding of truth among those who adhere to them; but no matter what, they exist only on the information layer: When I was a young child (more than 50 years ago) my family visited Sequoia National Park. Of the trees we saw close up, I was most enthralled by General Sherman (tree). At the time, the small visitor fence/barrier was not as close to the tree as it is now - it was about 15 feet away. While there, for no particular reason other than the pure joy of childhood, I climbed over the small barrier, ran over and hugged the tree. Now, it's been more than 50 years, but I can still remember the smell of that forest and the feel of the texture of the bark on that tree. So then; let's ask ourselves what "facts" are involved in that tree visit? Did I hug a tree? Yes, I did, so that's a "fact". Was that hug an "occurrence in the real world"? Yes it was. But is it also a fact that I can remember the way the tree felt? Yes it is. At the time I felt the texture of the tree, are those values which I assigned to that feel "facts"? The tree bark felt very strong, smooth and segmented to me; but it also felt rough. Now let me ask; is it a fact that my tactile experience resulted in those conclusions? Yes. Those conclusions were indeed my facts. But were they the actual facts about the texture of the tree? Aha - there's the rub; the answer is "who can say"? Do we accept the perceptions of a 5 year old as the basis of our factual conclusions regarding "the real world"? The answer is no, rational adults do not do that. The simple truth is that "facts" can only be rationally proffered by competent sincere persons capable of reasonable skill, who make a best efforts assessment, and come to a conclusion of information. Simply put, "facts" are on the information layer; and the information offered by children is far from exact. Facts are information about things, they are not attributes of the things themselves. And just to make this clear: Were I to have been autistic and unable to verbally share an assessment of my tactile experience in hugging that tree, I surely would have the feelings, but I would not be able to express any facts. And if I can't express them, you can't know them from me. Thus, my autistic expressions to you would not include any facts. In other words, facts, being expressions in the form of information, can (and do) only exist on the information layer. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Related Articles