A Distinction between Fact and Truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2009 08:00 am
@Kreist,
HI Kreist,Smile

I think a fact is a group judgement and truth is individual perception. One could say I suppose that the group judgement as a stated fact is based upon the collective perception/biology of the group, but, it still would not be personal experience for you, therefore, not really truth to you. Fact is of the group, truth is defined by individual experience, meaning biologically defined. I think truth needs to be personal. A rock being gray, round, heavy and hard, are all determined by biology, whether we are speaking of the group determined fact or the truth determined experience of the biology of the individual. These qualities of the rock are only found to be so relative to the biology that experiences them as so. So, Both the determinations of the group as fact and determinations of personal biology as truth, are biological determinations. Your personal belief about the group stated fact could be wrong, but, the truth experience of your own biology will always remain true to the biology that made the determination. In other words, even if your biology was somewhat off, it would be mistaken as to the collective fact, but the mistake would still be true to its own defective biology, its own experience is just that experience, and experience is never wrong. It is what it is, it is personal biological truth, it is your information about object and truth is the said relation between subject and object. I am going back to my room now---lol!!
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 03:38 am
@boagie,
I might add that a statement of fact from the group carries more crediability then from that of the individual, for both are biologically based determinations, but with the group it is a consensus, the biology of a number of people found this particular evaluation to be true, it has the authority of biological process multiplied.
 
AaronAgassi phil
 
Reply Fri 13 Feb, 2009 04:45 am
@Aphoric,
Indeed, better knowledge towards fuller explanation narrows predictable possibility. Hence, in theory, Determinism.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 04:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Of course. I can show you a person who could lift a stone which weighs one pound. Me, for instance.


You can show me a person standing next to a stone, and then later you can show me a person lifting a stone. Where is the possibillity to which 'could' refers? Can I be aware of the possibility in the same way that I cna be aware of the person or the stone: e.g. by touch, sight, etc.? No, the 'possibility' exists only a mental construction. It is not a reality in the same way that the person and rock are.
 
ACB
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 06:04 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
You can show me a person standing next to a stone, and then later you can show me a person lifting a stone. Where is the possibillity to which 'could' refers? Can I be aware of the possibility in the same way that I cna be aware of the person or the stone: e.g. by touch, sight, etc.? No, the 'possibility' exists only a mental construction. It is not a reality in the same way that the person and rock are.


If it is not a reality that I "could lift a stone which weighs one pound", is it a reality that I "am strong enough to lift a stone which weighs one pound"?
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:09 pm
@ACB,
Here's my objection to the subjunctive. Is there a difference of meaning between the following two statements: (1) I lift the stone, (2) I could lift the stone. If so, what is the difference? In terms of the event that occurs, is there a difference? I would say that the difference is purely mentaal: i.e. that 'could' is a lingual device, usefu to express our uncertainty about the future, but which does nor refer to an real situation is the same way that 'is' does.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:11 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
Here's my objection to the subjunctive. Is there a difference of meaning between the following two statements: (1) I lift the stone, (2) I could lift the stone. If so, what is the difference? In terms of the event that occurs, is there a difference? I would say that the difference is purely mentaal: i.e. that 'could' is a lingual device, usefu to express our uncertainty about the future, but which does nor refer to an real situation is the same way that 'is' does.


The difference is that 1 implies 2, but 2 does not imply 1.
 
ACB
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:33 pm
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
Here's my objection to the subjunctive. Is there a difference of meaning between the following two statements: (1) I lift the stone, (2) I could lift the stone. If so, what is the difference? In terms of the event that occurs, is there a difference? I would say that the difference is purely mentaal: i.e. that 'could' is a lingual device, usefu to express our uncertainty about the future, but which does nor refer to an real situation is the same way that 'is' does.


BrightNoon - How would you regard the sentence "I can lift the stone" if I am not lifting it at present? Is it merely another way of saying "I could...." or does it refer to an actual physical attribute that I have now?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 12:58 pm
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
BrightNoon - How would you regard the sentence "I can lift the stone" if I am not lifting it at present? Is it merely another way of saying "I could...." or does it refer to an actual physical attribute that I have now?


Can't "could" just be the past tense of "can". "I could lift that stone 10 years ago, but I can't now" ? And it also is a conditional form of "can". "I could lift that stone if it were not so hot". So it is ambiguous.
 
ACB
 
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2009 01:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Can't "could" just be the past tense of "can". "I could lift that stone 10 years ago, but I can't now" ? And it also is a conditional form of "can". "I could lift that stone if it were not so hot". So it is ambiguous.


I would say that whatever applies to "can" also applies to "could" as a past tense (let's call these Category 1), but "could" as a conditional is a different kind of statement (Category 2). BrightNoon's view is that category 2 does not refer to a real situation; I would like to know whether he thinks category 1 does.
 
mikelieus
 
Reply Wed 9 May, 2012 04:18 pm
@BrightNoon,
I just think that "truth" is something that we believe in and there is no exact evidences of it. Whereas, "fact" is something that has happened and there are still REMAINING evidences.
I am sorry as this may insult. Dinosaur once existed is a fact because there are fossils as the REMAINING evidences. Magic as Gods do not have any evidences, so it is just the truth that many people believe in.
 
Otenadu
 
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 10:39 pm
There is a distinction between the truth and the fact. That is why there has been a number of people who has been sentenced to jail not because they were guilty but it was due to the fact and might not have been the truth. Truth does not need any prove to be believed. Truth is true and its only God who can for a fact know.
The fact need to be scientifically proved. There is always the prove to suport and substantiate a fact. Lets note that a fact proven to be right today can be be proven to be wrong another time. No matter how true a matter is without a prove we can not call it a fact, though it is true. For example if some one is shot and killed in my compound and am not able to prove to the court that am innocent, I will be jailed for murder. The truth is that I did not kill the person but the fact is that I kille the peerson because the court was able to prove that I killed the person.

On the other hand, if I really kill a person and am able to prove to the court that I am innocent, I will be set free. The truth is I killed but I have prove to support the fact that I did not kill.

Accepting the truth is dependent on the listerner but fact acceptnce is dependant on ones ability to prove to support the fact. You don't need to move anything to be saying the truth but you need prove to represent the fact.
 
fdgsr
 
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 10:20 am
Opinion and belief cannot be truth because truth cannot be false. Opinion and belief can be false. So can matters of fact. A matter of fact can be logically opposite of what it truly is. So it can be true that an answer is false and it can be false that an answer is true. The dichotomy of true/false is the matter of fact.

Truth, is another matter entirely. Truth cannot be false, thus is a tautology. In other words a tautology is always true. However it cannot be true that 2 plus 2 sums to five. It also cannot be true that 2 plus 2 does not sum to four. Thus logic and math are about truth and belief and opinion are about matters of fact. Intuitive logic is built into the human mind and computers. Truly intuitive is always true, but if one claims that 2 plus 2 does not sum to four, it is a fact that he is mistaken. The basis of the mistake is a failure to apply the test of truth vs. fact. Ignorance is not a proof of truth or a disproof. One can ignore facts and get by with it, but not truth. As the Senator said, “You are entitled to your opinion even if false, but you are not entitled to your own truth.”

Mankind has identified a deity that determines possible and impossible, but not factually true or factually false. Anselm said, “God is that than which nothing higher is possible.” Truth fills that need. Nothing is true without Truth, God; and nothing is false without Truth, God. God rules the possible and the impossible, nature rules matters of fact. Even nature is ruled by Truth and influenced by the impossible. You can create facts on the ground, but you cannot overrule Truth, God. You can assign a different name to any factual reality or belief, but you cannot change what something is or its possibility. You can ignore Truth, but you cannot overrule Truth. Even an atheist believes in a higher power, the power of truth, for he believes that it is true that there is no God. But, if it were true, then Truth would be “…that than which nothing higher is possible.” Even God requires Truth, because Truth is required if there is God and if God is not. So God, as most believe, is a matter of fact (or matters of fact that are not true), but as Truth, God is certain and it is not possible that God is not. Truth is always true and never false. God is, always was, and will always be everywhere and in all time.



Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth Edit (Moderator): Link removed
 
Mr Allen
 
Reply Tue 9 Jul, 2013 07:37 am
TRUTH REGARDS THE INDIVIDUAL. ONE CAN PLACE THEIR HAND IN FIRE AND SAY IT IS NOT HOT TO THEM. THIS IS THEIR TRUTH. ONE CAN PLACE THEIR HAND IN FIRE AND SAY IT IS HOT TO THEM. THIS IS THEIR TRUTH. FIRE IS HOT IS A TRUTH TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

FACTS DISREGARD THE INDIVIDUAL. ANYONE THAT PLACES THEIR HAND IN FIRE WILL BE BURNED. FIRE BURNS IS A FACT TO ALL.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/18/2014 at 10:27:34