Talk:Fact

Fact vs truth

I'll start by saying I'm not an expert in these things. But I would have hoped to see a deeper discussion here.

The word "fact" definitely does not imply truth. Fowler (perhaps in Modern English Usage) had a nice example of a sentence showing this. It was something like

Fowler's facts are wrong, so his advice is likely wrong as well.

But WP not being a dictionary, we don't necessarily have to talk about all meanings of the word; we want to discuss the concept of fact, presumably as philosophers use it.

So what distinction do philosophers make between fact and truth? I don't know. I would have hoped to find out from this article.

My intuition would be something like the following: Truth is ontological, fact is epistemological. Truth is just about the way things are, whether we can find out or not. To say something is a fact, on the other hand, we should already have found out.

As an example, if I say it is true that Jimmy Hoffa is dead, according to the disquotational theory of truth, I am saying neither more nor less than Jimmy Hoffa is dead. I am allowed to say Jimmy Hoffa is dead without proof, just because it's what I think, taking on myself the risk of being wrong, and therefore I am allowed to say it is true that Jimmy Hoffa is dead under the same terms.

However if I say it is a fact that Jimmy Hoffa is dead, I am expected to have proof, or at least know in general terms where such proof might be found. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As a minimum it seems this article should state that "fact" and "truth" are synonyms, or describe the distinction, and also include "truth" in the "see also" section. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My normal response to this sort of argument is to point out that Wikipedia simply reflects what the sources say, and to suggest trying to find a source supporting your preferred wording. In this case, however, the source ( http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fact ) says this:

• (n) fact (a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred) "first you must collect all the facts of the case"

• (n) fact (a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened) "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

• (n) fact (an event known to have happened or something known to have existed) "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

• (n) fact (a concept whose truth can be proved) "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

I don't see that source actually supporting the "truths" mentioned in "Facts can refer to truths...". " The phrase "a concept whose truth can be proved" is close but subtly different.

I would also question why that particular dictionary. Why not http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fact, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact or http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Partridge's example is easily read as a metaphorical use of "fact", ie

Your "facts" are wrong

Your so-called "facts" are wrong

etc. However such metaphors are usually kept separate from literal meaning. 1Z (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So first of all, I don't have a preferred wording; I think that was clear from what I said. In any case, though, dictionaries are extremely poor sources for encyclopedia articles. As I said a couple of times, we are not in the business of defining words; we're in the business of talking about the things the words refer to.

Anything sourced to a dictionary might almost as well not be sourced at all. What we need are secondary sources (a dictionary is more like a tertiary source) explaining what the concept of fact means in context; i.e. presumably what it means to philosophers. --Trovatore (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph upto the one that begins "My intuition" are what I have be thinking and arguing for. The only thing I can add is that, what we would have found out to conclude the fact could be an error; thus the fact ending up being false. A fact can therefore either be true or false. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that a link to Truth has been added to the first sentence of this article. It seems weird to me that we'd have a circular definition like this, as Truth links to Fact in the first sentence as well. I propose removing altering that first sentence, or at least removing the recursive link. FrancoTheo (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topics of the two articles, Truth and Fact, are closely related, so it makes sense that they should link to one another, with that link appearing early in each article. In my view, construing those links as a "circular definition" is only possible if one does not read beyond each article's first sentence. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks for that info, and I see your point about the relation between pages. One other aspect that I just realized is that this link to Truth breaks the long-standing phenomenon where clicking the first link of a wikipedia page eventually leads to Philosophy - see Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy. Not sure if this is something that should be considered in situations like this, but it is sad to see it get destroyed by a pretty small/trivial change. FrancoTheo (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just plain Bill, which part of WP:NOTDICTIONARY does it say that circular definitions between two articles in their ledes is A-ok for an encyclopaedia, since an encyclopaedia is "not a dictionary"? If the two articles are truly about distinct concepts, there's no reason why the lede sentence of each has to say "A is B" and "B is A"; they should, instead, take the form "A is C" and "B is D", with C and D being reflective of the contents of each article. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:51E:ADFC:AB48:F127 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2022 (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)

Change to lead

I’ve made a modification to the first sentence of the lead to match both our cited sources and academic understanding of facts and truth. The lead previously said that facts are things that are true. According to the cites and academic opinion, propositions, not facts, are the bearers of truth-values, and so it is propositions (and, secondarily, sentences, inscriptions, utterances, etc.) that can be true/false, not facts. Facts are what MAKE propositions true, but facts themselves cannot be true. I’m happy to discuss this, although I don’t anticipate an issue, since the RS do not claim that facts are bearers of truth-values. ThanksForHelping (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

In the legal arena, a fact is a datum offered to the court (via evidence/testimony) which is presumed to be true unless rebutted. That's why the court process includes "fact finding", which is the process of the authority (judge or jury) determining which facts are true. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fact (law) exists as a redirect; the definition at its target should be law-focused. Our lead sentence here should be generalized, not tailored to legal application. I think ThanksForHelping's Aug 28 version was superior. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I like "A fact is a statement that accurately describes reality" Lbeaumont (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it Problematic that if you play the "first-link" game on the 'Fact' page that you end up on the page for 'Feeling'?

"First-link" game is when you click the first link of an article. I have no other name for it, but almost all editors must have heard that when you click the first link of a majority of pages it ends up at the philosophy page.

I am not sure if this is considered vandalism or was intentionally done, or if I am having a personal epistemological crisis, but at the very least I suppose it deserves a section on the talk page. I am unsure of a solution for this.

The path in question is from Fact > Truth Value [links from 'True-False evaluation'] > Logic > Reason > Consciousness > Sentience > Feeling I am a Leaf (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Answer: No, it isn't problematic, and no solution is needed, because there is no problem. WP pages should be edited based on encyclopedic goals, without worrying about this trivial amusement. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)