My position is well known here. Namely, that observable facts and testable hypotheses do not involve "belief". Because belief is nothing more than the treatment of unsupported assertions as fact. When one has evidence to support an assertion, that assertion becomes, by definition, an evidentially supported postulate, and belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Of course, certain minimum standards apply when discussing evidence. Made up shit does not equal evidence, which immediately eliminates almost all apologetic fabrications erected by mythology fetishists.

THWOTH wrote:Indeed. But knowledge is always provisional, the proviso being that any item of knowledge can be revised or rescinded at any time as new information comes to light. Nonetheless, this does not devalue the useful assuredness of facts. I use helium as an example because it's a ubiquitous something that has been demonstrated to exist, unlike God for example, and I've no issue with accepting that relative atomic mass is measurement property used for the purposes of definition, explanation and comparison.

I don't think we are too far apart here.

So long as we treat a fact as provional and not some unalterable truth.
Cali's observable fact jf equivalent to a reproducible observation, I have no problem.

Take evolution for example, for me it is a model that is reproducibly observable. It is a bloody good modej, our cornerstone of modern biology and I can't point to a better model. But our model changes with time as we get more information but the basic core has remained solid (and this is a strength). Would I describe it as a fact? No, but then I would not describe Newton's laws as fact either, although I use them implicitly and without question on a daily basis.

romansh wrote:Take evolution for example, for me it is a model that is reproducibly observable. It is a bloody good modej, our cornerstone of modern biology and I can't point to a better model. But our model changes with time as we get more information but the basic core has remained solid (and this is a strength). Would I describe it as a fact? No, but then I would not describe Newton's laws as fact either, although I use them implicitly and without question on a daily basis.

Here you need to distinguish between the theory of evolution and evolution itself. Evolution is a fact. It's been observed occurring. The theory of evolution (actually, theories would be more accurate) is a model.

As for Newton's Laws, you'd have to specify which laws. His universal law of gravitation, for example, is not a fact, because it's wrong, not least because it contains no term dealing with the rate of propagation.

hackenslash wrote:

Here you need to distinguish between the theory of evolution and evolution itself. Evolution is a fact. It's been observed occurring. The theory of evolution (actually, theories would be more accurate) is a model.

As for Newton's Laws, you'd have to specify which laws. His universal law of gravitation, for example, is not a fact, because it's wrong, not least because it contains no term dealing with the rate of propagation.

Hack
It's not evolution I have a problem with ... it is the word fact.

A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

hackenslash wrote:A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

I can't help thinking a fact is a synonym for one of Cito's prize winning poodles.

If indeed a fact is not a synonym for truth than we can move forward.

THWOTH wrote:Armchair philosophy is far easier on the fundament than the academic equivalent, that's for sure (which is to say that academic philosphy is sometimes a right pain in the arse!).

Yep, it goes way over my head. Not that I don't understand what they're saying, I just can't see why people have to make a study of something you can just mull over in a conversation, and that makes sense. Still people do study it. I couldn't, way too boring.

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

I can't help thinking a fact is a synonym for one of Cito's prize winning poodles.

If indeed a fact is not a synonym for truth than we can move forward.

People used to report facts about the Soviet Union, such as the land area it encompassed. Is it counter-factual to say that Sputnik 1 was launched into earth orbit from the territory of the Soviet Union in October 1957, as Wikipedia is my witness? Do you get this, yet, or is obtuseness the entire point of semantic wibbling? Did I say that everything in Wikipedia is a fact? No? Do we give up if we can't enumerate the set of {all facts} from a definition involving fact-checkers? You know that all your dictionary definitions are ultimately circular. Haven't we been over this?

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

I can't help thinking a fact is a synonym for one of Cito's prize winning poodles.

If indeed a fact is not a synonym for truth than we can move forward.

My opinion is that truths are subjective, facts not so much. I see too much of "I believe" behind "truth" whereas with "fact" I see something that can be shown to exist, or be a certainty.

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

I can't help thinking a fact is a synonym for one of Cito's prize winning poodles.

If indeed a fact is not a synonym for truth than we can move forward.

People used to report facts about the Soviet Union, such as the land area it encompassed. Is it counter-factual to say that Sputnik 1 was launched into earth orbit from the territory of the Soviet Union in October 1957, as Wikipedia is my witness? Do you get this, yet, or is obtuseness the entire point of semantic wibbling? Did I say that everything in Wikipedia is a fact? No? Do we give up if we can't enumerate the set of {all facts} from a definition involving fact-checkers? You know that all your dictionary definitions are ultimately circular. Haven't we been over this?

OK
Is a fact a truth or not? Just asking ...

romansh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

romansh wrote:

hackenslash wrote:A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

I can't help thinking a fact is a synonym for one of Cito's prize winning poodles.

If indeed a fact is not a synonym for truth than we can move forward.

People used to report facts about the Soviet Union, such as the land area it encompassed. Is it counter-factual to say that Sputnik 1 was launched into earth orbit from the territory of the Soviet Union in October 1957, as Wikipedia is my witness? Do you get this, yet, or is obtuseness the entire point of semantic wibbling? Did I say that everything in Wikipedia is a fact? No? Do we give up if we can't enumerate the set of {all facts} from a definition involving fact-checkers? You know that all your dictionary definitions are ultimately circular. Haven't we been over this?

OK
Is a fact a truth or not? Just asking ...

I don't think a fact is a "truth" I think it's a fact. I don't like the word "truth": when someone says that they're not lying (i.e. telling the truth) it's a red flag to me that they are telling lies.

Agrippina wrote:
I don't think a fact is a "truth" I think it's a fact.

So would you say facts aren't necessarily true?

I would agree that when we use facts we are striving for the truth.

romansh wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
I don't think a fact is a "truth" I think it's a fact.

So would you say facts aren't necessarily true?

I would agree that when we use facts we are striving for the truth.

Is 'truth' a magic word, or something? You know, the way 'reality' is? 'Truth' is an idealisation, if it is not given in restricted contexts, such as the ones mathematicians or computer scientists use.

Striving isn't particularly diagnostic of anything that lacks emotional shading. We don't denigrate people who find mathematics easy. We admire them.

A lie is a fact. A fact-checker can check it. The point is that something definite can be said, although perhaps not eternally. If we want to concern ourselves with the home-truths of particular language communities, we've lost the thread.

If you want truth as the still point at the center of a turning world, well, you know where that leads.

hackenslash wrote:A fact is simply something that has occurred or is the case. Evolution has occurred. It's been observed occurring. It's a fact. I don't see the problem here.

Do you recall that bit about popular delusions and the madness of crowds? You can google the full phrase. The subtle problem is distinguishing facts from mass delusions before the, er, fact. Eventually people start wibbling about 'language communities' or 'truth mills'. So, we say, the facts come eventually to light, and some people carefully craft their statements to be other than subject to fact-checking.

Calilasseia wrote:Of course, certain minimum standards apply when discussing evidence. Made up shit does not equal evidence, which immediately eliminates almost all apologetic fabrications erected by mythology fetishists.

Oh, quite, but see above, for the caveats. Sometimes, as the historians of science intone, the community has to wait for someone to die before some set of statements stops being promoted and getting attention. It's why scientists separate the data from the interpretation, and it's why I find the social 'sciences' quite as fraught as they are.

romansh wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
I don't think a fact is a "truth" I think it's a fact.

So would you say facts aren't necessarily true?

I would agree that when we use facts we are striving for the truth.

A 'fact' is a secure item of knowledge. What secures knowledge is its supporting grounds; the reasons for maintaining this-or-that is actually the case. We use scepticism as a method of testing how secure knowledge is. As long as the supporting grounds of an item of knowledge resists all proportionate sceptical challenges that fact remains secure, and when it doesn't we revise our knowledge claims or throw them away and start again.

The necessity of truth is neither here nor there.

What I was taught in Logic (in Vietnamese so the translation may cause problems) is that "fact" is the obsolete word for "datum" and implies a measurement or field observation and that "law of nature" is the obsolete word for what we now call "theory," or the story we attach that "explains" the data -- puts it in context.

Of course in ordinary terms and as used by many scientists, these older phrases are still used, and for some things they are somewhat hardwired into the language, but for the most part should be avoided or at least qualified when used.

THWOTH wrote:

romansh wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
I don't think a fact is a "truth" I think it's a fact.

So would you say facts aren't necessarily true?

I would agree that when we use facts we are striving for the truth.

A 'fact' is a secure item of knowledge. What secures knowledge is its supporting grounds; the reasons for maintaining this-or-that is actually the case. We use scepticism as a method of testing how secure knowledge is. As long as the supporting grounds of an item of knowledge resists all proportionate sceptical challenges that fact remains secure, and when it doesn't we revise our knowledge claims or throw them away and start again.

The necessity of truth is neither here nor there.

Yep, they say that truth is stranger than fiction, I think that in a lot of cases, "truth" is fiction.

Frank Merton wrote:What I was taught in Logic (in Vietnamese so the translation may cause problems) is that "fact" is the obsolete word for "datum" and implies a measurement or field observation and that "law of nature" is the obsolete word for what we now call "theory," or the story we attach that "explains" the data -- puts it in context.

Of course in ordinary terms and as used by many scientists, these older phrases are still used, and for some things they are somewhat hardwired into the language, but for the most part should be avoided or at least qualified when used.

'Fact' is not an outdated, obsolete or unintelligible term, its not a special, technical term and its application doesn't have novel or counter-intuitive consequences that require special qualification in order to avoid us being left flapping around in a dizzying vortex of incomprehension. A 'fact' is something we know to be the case. That's it. The confusion arises when some folks start thinking that an application of the term somehow assures the veracity of the declaration. Saying something is a fact does not necessarily mean that the something in question is actually the case, but so what?

THWOTH wrote:

Frank Merton wrote:What I was taught in Logic (in Vietnamese so the translation may cause problems) is that "fact" is the obsolete word for "datum" and implies a measurement or field observation and that "law of nature" is the obsolete word for what we now call "theory," or the story we attach that "explains" the data -- puts it in context.

Of course in ordinary terms and as used by many scientists, these older phrases are still used, and for some things they are somewhat hardwired into the language, but for the most part should be avoided or at least qualified when used.

'Fact' is not an outdated, obsolete or unintelligible term, its not a special, technical term and its application doesn't have novel or counter-intuitive consequences that require special qualification in order to avoid us being left flapping around in a dizzying vortex of incomprehension. A 'fact' is something we know to be the case. That's it. The confusion arises when some folks start thinking that an application of the term somehow assures the veracity of the declaration. Saying something is a fact does not necessarily mean that the something in question is actually the case, but so what?

A fact is some event or occurrence which is either verifiable, demonstrable, or not in dispute, and where, in disputes, contenders should follow the rules of proper discourse.

FWOFF wrote:A 'fact' is something we know to be the case. That's it. The confusion arises when some folks start thinking that an application of the term somehow assures the veracity of the declaration. Saying something is a fact does not necessarily mean that the something in question is actually the case, but so what?

I can't disagree more with the latter part of that post, mate. The status of 'fact' isn't magically conferred by our knowledge of it. A fact is merely an instance of something that occurs or is actually the case. Our knowledge of it is irrelevant. Saying something is a fact doesn't mean that it's actually the case, but being a fact most certainly does. To use an example I used in another thread, it was always a fact that the Newtonian model of gravity was incorrect, regardless of the fact that we had to wait 300 years to find it out. It is a fact that the light from Andromeda left 2.5 million years ago (assuming, for the sake of the example, that this eventually turns out to be beyond question; don't focus on the example, it's for illustration only), and it was a fact when it left, more than 2 million years prior to our knowledge of it.

The first portion of your post is spot on, but the second part is so woolly as to render the word nigh-on meaningless.