Talk:Fact/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request on 29 October 2012

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'; and a fact is "something that is the case"; — (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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

Please change the term "proven" in the second sentence to the term "demonstrated" - see the following for details: The second sentence in the entry for "Fact" is as follows, "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience." The use of the word "proven" is problematic as following the "proven" link to the wiki "proof" page one finds, "A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition." However in most peoples minds the word "Proof" is synonymous with the use of "Proof" in logic Formal_proof or mathematics Mathematical_proof which is beyond further question. The new wording using the word "demonstrated" is a better match for the definition used under the proof link "sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition". This proposed change would change the second sentence to, "The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience." This change would have the description of a "Fact" apply to more situations as it does not affect the meaning in a general sense or under other specific senses but is closer to the way the term "Fact" is used in a scientific context - see the wiki entry for "Proof" which has many contexts under which the term is used but science or under a scientific context is not one. Dtheis (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done DJAMP4444 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715011254/http://www.wernerherzog.com/52.html to http://www.wernerherzog.com/52.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

can't edit - Pascal Engel

For some reason, I can't edit this article although I am registered and logged in. I wanted to change "Engel's version" in the section "Correspondence and the slingshot argument" to: Pascal Engel's version. Vincedevries (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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 "

"A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality (by currently accepted standards)..."

For example (using the definition's examples)

"this sentence contains words"  was not actually considered a sentence until maybe 1992 when the first SMS was sent because it is a declarative sentence which requires a period at the end. 

"the sun is a star" ... for now. One day it will run out of hydrogen, then (probably) go red giant, then white dwarf, then cease being a star. Alternatively, it could (probably not) go supernova then cease being a star.

Also, before 2006, Pluto was a planet by the standards of the time.

Facts are not absolute Do I Seriously Have To Explain This (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you do not seriously need to explain this. Some facts are intrinsic: "3 + 7 = 10" is an intrinsic fact that no-one seriously disputes. Some facts are temporal. "Donald Trump is President of the United States." is a fact now, but was not a fact in the past and, as some future time, will not be a fact any more. Many, a great many, Wikipedia articles are written in the present tense and report present facts, trusting that those who come after us will amend the article as times change. I'm not sure how much this article needs to address this obvious fact, but nobody disputes it. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

No, a fact doesn't have to be known. You are confusing the ontic with the epistemic. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

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)