Hi

I have been pondering the subjectivity of truth, what determines knowledge, and what defines a fact.

I would like to open up a discussion of whether facts exist, and hopefully gain some clarity, or otherwise I think I will go mad.

Opinions please.

:bigsmile:

Bishop Whately, as I remember, once wrote an article that "proved" that Napoleon didn't exist, or perhaps a better way of putting it was that we could not actually prove he existed if we subjected the historical information to radical doubt.

The question whether "facts" actually exist in some more or less objective manner seems to depend on how "strongly" you define what a "fact" must be to be a fact. If, for example, one says that everything is a matter of interpretation and adopts a very strong definition of "fact" then none exist and if one adopts a very weak definition, then everything imaginable is a "fact."

Bishop Whately, as I remember, once wrote an article that "proved" that Napoleon didn't exist, or perhaps a better way of putting it was that we could not actually prove he existed if we subjected the historical information to radical doubt.

The question whether "facts" actually exist in some more or less objective manner seems to depend on how "strongly" you define what a "fact" must be to be a fact. If, for example, one says that everything is a matter of interpretation and adopts a very strong definition of "fact" then none exist and if one adopts a very weak definition, then everything imaginable is a "fact."

In ordinary language, most people understand that a past event is a "fact" under certain accepted conditions which can be summarized by some phrase such as "know to be by those in a position to know whether it is true or not." While this phrase seems to philosophically beg the question about who is in a position to know, it seems in practice to work.

A fact is 'what is'. Now the knowledge of 'what is' is a completely different animal altogether.
I tend to lean to the correspondence theory of truth; facts(truth) correspond to reality and where knowledge corresponds to truth then it is correct or right knowledge.

so IMO -
Truth is objective. (truth defined as facts, not what is the best color)
and correctness of knowledge is objective.

Hi

I have been pondering the subjectivity of truth, what determines knowledge, and what defines a fact.

I would like to open up a discussion of whether facts exist, and hopefully gain some clarity, or otherwise I think I will go mad.

Opinions please.

Modes of Occurrence) the facts are both truth functional and essentially the actual state of things, be that a complex of subjects and predicates or the relation of those complexes (which can be abstract, but the constituents of the subjects and the predicates not). If I said " Dan handed the goblet to Pete," The constituents, namely "Dan" and "Pete" are subjects related to the act of handing the goblet. So the constituents and the relation are there. But what makes it a fact that Dan handed Pete the goblet is that "procurement" of that state of things. Maybe this is what it is to be a "brute fact?" Of course this is highly debatable, because even within the confines of modern philosophers, they all have an idea of what a fact is in one way or another, but just to give you an idea to work with. Also, if you fool around with predicate logic, you get some interesting elaborations on the subject.

What does it mean to exist? Again, a very subjective topic. But suppose you thought about it in terms of how Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell did, that existence, though a concept inherent in the total sum of reality, is itself a second level predicate. That is, what it means to exist is ontologically secondary in the grander scheme of things, being that "existence" is a property describing another property

That would make it clearer?

What you wrote makes it a lot more complicated and obscure than it was at the start.

All that was asked was whether there are future and current facts as well as past facts. And it seems to me clear that there are. And I gave an example. It was a fact yesterday that the next day (today) would be Thursday. Do you disagree?

I'm loving these answers, thanks.

I facts change were they ever facts?
Are facts as subjective as truths?

I facts change were they ever facts?

Are facts as subjective as truths?

Didn't the OP ask whether facts exist only in the past? That would seem to be asking whether (or not) there are facts that exist in the present, or in the future. (I can't think what else that would ask). And, I gave an example of a future fact. Do you really think there could be any debate whether it is a fact that the day after Wednesday is Thursday? I don't see how. Even Einstein would agree with that.

One way to look at it this question is to juxtapose the opposite of some fact and debate whether or not that fact is just as valid as the opposite. If the fact were that Dan handed the Goblet to Pete, and we also have "Dan did not hand the Goblet to Pete," the fact is that Dan did not

Sorry. Too complex an answer to what seems to be a simple question. No one talked about absolute past, or present, or future. Whatever those are. The issue is, for example, whether if it is true that tomorrow is Friday, is it a fact that tomorrow is Friday. In asking such a question we are supposing, of course, that there is such a thing as tomorrow, and that, therefore, there is such a thing as the future. But the OP question would not even make sense without that supposition. We talk and think inside a context. Without that context, we don't make sense.

I don't understand your last paragraph. Contribute to what. And what "logic trap" have you in mind? You seem to be accusing me of setting a logic trap for you. I have no idea what you mean. I don't set traps. And people usually construct the traps they fall into.

Suffice to say that you can make whatever you want out of your own question and answer it however you want

But what question do you think he answered? He answered The Monkey's question, not a question he constructed. Or did I miss something?

The discussion between he and you is why his response doesn't answer The Monkey's initial question.

Kennethamy, I find it hilarious how you approach some posts, especially those which give you no definite answers.

Yes. I don't get his point. And why does he think (if he does) that I set a logic trap for him? As the King of Siam said, "It is a puzzlement".

---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 07:04 PM ----------

Do you mean, perhaps that some posts do not admit of definite answers? But since I did give a definite answer, the answer was that it is false that facts exist only in the past, why did you say that? Perhaps you thought that my answer was wrong? But you did not show that. So, can you say what you do mean? If anything? By the way, how do you think I should approach posts that ask a question? Not try to give an answer? Puzzling.

let us not forget that we are, in a way, always observing the past since there must be some delay for the time it took the light to reach our eyes.

Actually consider if I said it is a fact that the Sun is burning right now. Well I really don't know the answer to that. I know that it is a fact the sun was burning 7 minutes ago though.

(if he does) that...) are very uncalled for.