Are there such things as facts?

[Sunstone]

Are there such things as facts? Why or why not?

Note: For the purposes of this thread, a fact is something that has actually happened or that is actually the case. Moreover, a fact exists independent of anyone's belief in whether or not it exists. Last, facts can always -- in principle, at least, if not in actuality -- be verified by their accord with empirical observation and experience.

By "in principle" is meant that some facts might no longer be actually verifiable by empirical observation (e.g. they may be historical facts for which witnesses are no longer alive to testify to them), but that they would nevertheless have been empirically verifiable at the time of their occurrence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yep, I reckon there are facts. But a lot of what people claim to be facts are not.
Still, barring solipsism, it's a fact that I'm typing on my keyboard right now. I also have a wedding ring on my left hand, which is verifiable, if not over the net.

Most facts are not especially informative.

 

[Sunstone]

Most facts are not especially informative.

Yup, that's a fact.

 

[xkatz]

Well let's try...

F...
A...
C...
T...
S...

F... A... C... T... S...

*Squeezes letters harder*

F-A-C-T-S

*Squeezes even harder*

FACTS

By forcing the letters "f" "a" "c" "t" and "s" together through intense bursts of energy, I have combined them to create the word "facts". So, yes facts do exists. That's a fact as proven by my experiment.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes. And that's a fact.

 

[ChristineES]

There are facts. It is a fact that I am at my computer desk right now. It is a fact that I am typing out this response. If there were no such things as facts, Joe Friday would not have had a job.

 

[Quintessence]

Does anyone else see this question as analogous to asking "does an objective existence/reality/anything exist?"

 

[Sunstone]

Does anyone else see this question as analogous to asking "does an objective existence/reality/anything exist?"

It's close to that, but not quite, in my opinion. The means of verifying something to be factual does not require a belief in objective reality.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are there such things as facts? Why or why not?

Note: For the purposes of this thread, a fact is something that has actually happened or that is actually the case. Moreover, a fact exists independent of anyone's belief in whether or not it exists. Last, facts can always -- in principle, at least, if not in actuality -- be verified by their accord with empirical observation and experience.

By "in principle" is meant that some facts might no longer be actually verifiable by empirical observation (e.g. they may be historical facts for which witnesses are no longer alive to testify to them), but that they would nevertheless have been empirically verifiable at the time of their occurrence.

If there were no facts, little of use could ever be accomplished.

 

[Quintessence]

It's close to that, but not quite, in my opinion. The means of verifying something to be factual does not require a belief in objective reality.

You kind of lost me here. In order for something to "actually happen" or "actually be the case" doesn't that inherently imply that there must be an objective reality? It's a rather black-and-white statement, and that sort of concreteness an only happen with an underlying objective reality, right?

 

[Alceste]

Are there such things as facts? Why or why not?

Note: For the purposes of this thread, a fact is something that has actually happened or that is actually the case. Moreover, a fact exists independent of anyone's belief in whether or not it exists. Last, facts can always -- in principle, at least, if not in actuality -- be verified by their accord with empirical observation and experience.

By "in principle" is meant that some facts might no longer be actually verifiable by empirical observation (e.g. they may be historical facts for which witnesses are no longer alive to testify to them), but that they would nevertheless have been empirically verifiable at the time of their occurrence.

Yes, there are facts, but apart from the trivial ones, we can't see them. We can see only evidence of the facts. It's up to us to make sure the evidence we are using is of the highest quality if we are to have any hope of having fact-based opinions and beliefs. And that is an uphill struggle, because the brains we're working with have evolved to see bogeymen everywhere and make a tall tale out of everything.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

And that is an uphill struggle, because the brains we're working with have evolved to see bogeymen everywhere and make a tall tale out of everything.

Oh my God...they got to you too!?

 

[Alceste]

Oh my God...they got to you too!?

They've got everybody. :sad4:

 

[lewisnotmiller]

They've got everybody. :sad4:

Not me. Got me a handy-dandy tinfoil hat. But don't tell THEM that.

 

[Keiichi]

You kind of lost me here. In order for something to "actually happen" or "actually be the case" doesn't that inherently imply that there must be an objective reality? It's a rather black-and-white statement, and that sort of concreteness an only happen with an underlying objective reality, right?

I agree. Usage of the word "fact" implies a belief in an objective reality.


I'm still not sure what Sunstone is asking. Is there any reason to assume that facts or reality are not "real?" If not, it seems like a waste of time to continously question one's perception of the world; it's no better than wondering whether there are purple unicorns in the Amazon or not.

 

[Sunstone]

You kind of lost me here. In order for something to "actually happen" or "actually be the case" doesn't that inherently imply that there must be an objective reality? It's a rather black-and-white statement, and that sort of concreteness an only happen with an underlying objective reality, right?

Don't get misled by phrases like "actually happened". The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding in this case is how "actually happened" is verified to be the case. Put differently, the operational definition of "actually happened" is the verification process. And the verification process does not, so far as I can see, necessarily imply a metaphysics.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree. Usage of the word "fact" implies a belief in an objective reality.

If a fact is defined as verified or established by process x, and process x does not imply a metaphysics, there are no grounds for asserting that "fact" necessarily implies a belief in this or that metaphysics, including a belief in objective reality.

 

[Willamena]

Are there such things as facts?

I don't know: is there such a thing as facts?

 

[Alceste]

I don't know: is there such a thing as facts?

No, it is impossible, because "is" is singular and "facts" is plural. :beach:

 

[TashaN]

Are there such things as facts? Why or why not?

Note: For the purposes of this thread, a fact is something that has actually happened or that is actually the case. Moreover, a fact exists independent of anyone's belief in whether or not it exists. Last, facts can always -- in principle, at least, if not in actuality -- be verified by their accord with empirical observation and experience.

By "in principle" is meant that some facts might no longer be actually verifiable by empirical observation (e.g. they may be historical facts for which witnesses are no longer alive to testify to them), but that they would nevertheless have been empirically verifiable at the time of their occurrence.

We always define facts based on our current state of knowledge and awareness. That's why i personally believe that facts are relative.