-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fact vs Truth?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Yes.
Fact has four letters, and truth has five. They also have only one letter in common.
Glad I could help.
Fact has four letters, and truth has five. They also have only one letter in common.
Glad I could help.
In all seriousness, a fact is something that's objectively true. A truth can be objectively true based on objective evidence, and therefore a fact, but it can also be subjective based on empirical or experiential evidence.
I wouldn't consider this a truth tho.
I would consider it a personal truth, but not a universal truth, and thus not a fact.
It can't be proven, so I can't see it as a truth.
In my world there are not many facts/truths.
Depends on context, as with most all words in a language. Language is nuanced like that.
As a science-minded person, I tend to consider "facts" as a single point of measurable empirical data. For example, I can observe the number of petals on a particular species of plant and the number of petals is a fact. Perhaps we could call it logos - empirical, observational knowledge that just describes something out there. But the word "fact" is also used colloquially very often, such as "as a matter of fact" or "in fact" without referencing facts proper, so to speak.
Truth is an entirely different beast. In some contexts it is more or less synonymous with facts or logos. But, when discussing less superficial and simplistic things (e.g., philosophy, religion, lifeways, culture), truth is mythos - perennial observations and values that may not be literally or observationally true, but feel true or are deeply meaningful to a person or culture. And as usual, "truth" is used colloquially as well giving it a very wide range of meanings and subtexts.
As a science-minded person, I tend to consider "facts" as a single point of measurable empirical data. For example, I can observe the number of petals on a particular species of plant and the number of petals is a fact. Perhaps we could call it logos - empirical, observational knowledge that just describes something out there. But the word "fact" is also used colloquially very often, such as "as a matter of fact" or "in fact" without referencing facts proper, so to speak.
Truth is an entirely different beast. In some contexts it is more or less synonymous with facts or logos. But, when discussing less superficial and simplistic things (e.g., philosophy, religion, lifeways, culture), truth is mythos - perennial observations and values that may not be literally or observationally true, but feel true or are deeply meaningful to a person or culture. And as usual, "truth" is used colloquially as well giving it a very wide range of meanings and subtexts.
I would thing that facts are empirically verifiable.
But whence the idea that 'truth' isn't?
Nor would I, unfortunately many people do
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Facts are always true. Claimed facts might be true or false.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
The two words do not necessarily mean the same. The Two Truths (Buddhism) doctrine is clearly not the same as "The Two Facts doctrine."
"The doctrine of the two truths, the belief that there are two levels, two concurrent perspectives, on which to understand “reality,” was originated by Nagarjuna in the Middle Way Philosophy and has become a core belief in Buddhism."
- Two Truths - Deep Dharma
"The doctrine of the two truths, the belief that there are two levels, two concurrent perspectives, on which to understand “reality,” was originated by Nagarjuna in the Middle Way Philosophy and has become a core belief in Buddhism."
- Two Truths - Deep Dharma
Not necessarilly.
I believe that you currently identify as Anglican. I also believe that Anglicans embrace the Trinity and the resurrection as core truths.
How might one empirically verify this?
One wouldn't.
In part, at least, because one couldn't.
To the extent that "truth" is a worthwhile category, I imagine that it differs little from "accepted belief."
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You can be truthful about things that are not facts.
Facts don't require truthfulness as they speak for themselves on their own.
Could you give an example?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The sun, rain, wind......