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.

One way I could see the issue becoming a little bit clearer is essentially putting everything on a giant scale and measuring the value of each of the issues you have against one another? like the one scene in Monty python and the Holy Grail where Sir Bedevere and the Peasants are attempting in their own way to find out whether or not the lady is a witch.

What are facts? Barry Taylor would say (as far as his work in 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 and not the thing itself. This is an Aristotelian "primacy of substance" issue made manifest? and grappled with for thousands of years? literally. I find this conceptualization useful because it now reveals a hierarchy you can use in your scale. If what it means for a given thing to exist is a second level predicate, and a first level predicate is something which describes the thing itself (much like a fact, which is essentially a state of things, truth functional, and relies a lot less on secondary properties than on the subject-predicate relationship), you could put facts on a slightly higher point than existence because existence is simply a second level predicate of fact. Make no mistake though, what it means to be fact is not primary, just better to work with than a blunt secondary predicate.

So, to answer one of the initial questions you have, it may be the case that facts do exist, but facts are more primary than the second level predicate "exist." It would seem to me that if you looked at it this way, it doesn't matter whether or not facts exist, because the very nature of a more primary notion trumps a blunt secondary predicate.

The topic question in particular is what I find interesting though, the introduction of time into this whole equation. You could take a "static" view of time like Zeno of Elea (with his arrow paradox). In that, temporal change and progression are not but illusory perceptions (i.e. the arrow never get to half of its total distance). This seems a very problematic conceptualization to utilize for your question though. You would also take a more "dynamic" view of time, where past and present contain fundamentally more reality than the future. In your question then, facts really do reside in past (and present). However, there is this really neat theory by John MacTaggart that states that there is a contradiction in progressive time (our conception that the future becomes the present which becomes the past). The argument implies that all events are past, present, and future, not the chain of future-present-past. So maybe facts reside in all, some, etc. aspects of time.

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 would think it would make things clearer. The first paragraph introduced a way in which I (we) could look at the problem, like a scale in which we can put one thing before another, or behind, whatever come out of the conclusion (like Descartes and formal, objective, and eminent realities? but different in content). The second paragraph measures the value of facts. It was a broad address to facts, and a response to The Monkey's (hehe) question "what defines a fact (and knowledge)?" It was also a segway into my own thoughts on the matter. I want to break the parts of his question up and address each of them individuality, them reconstruct them in hopes of getting to the main question "facts only exist in the past." In the third paragraph, I say that existence is a second level predicate (useful to my own inquiry and the question The Monkey asked about). The fourth paragraph is the summation, addressing "facts only exist in the past" in terms of ontological predicates (what has more priority (i.e. higher) on the scale in the case of my own analogy). The fact is more important than the existing aspect (which ties back into the more in depth look at "facts," whether or not they exist (which does not really matter), etc. The fifth paragraph, I thought at least, was a cleanup of most of the remaining issues, like the notion of time (i.e. past).

What I have noticed recently is that a good part of members who are genuinely looking for some suggestions or answers, benefit the best from just a wide volume of facts and ideas. Within that belief, I find it best to just throw as many things as I can on the table on the topic, and, hopefully, manage to throw something out that a member finds useful, to both their current inquiry and a connection they may not have made or known about. It makes for a very wide and dynamic discussion.

As to what we both interpret as the crux of The Monkey's question is debatable. You say "All that was asked was whether there are future and current facts as well as past facts." I think that is a part of a very dynamic, wider discussion. Just as a small proof of the dynamics of the discussion is how your conception of the main question has changed, especially after jgweed's post. The content and theme of post #2 and #5 are noticeably different. Now do I disagree with your question "It was a fact yesterday that the next day (today) would be Thursday?" Perhaps if, as I have stated, you look at either a "static," dynamic" or abstract view of time, you could come to your own conclusion within the context of my post. But we all have relative conceptions of these things (lol! should have put Einstein and the theory of relativity in there too). Note that I do not take any one view, but offer a few possibilities for the OP to consider? which I find to be the primary reason of why I wrote my post in the first place.

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. Honestly, that seems more of a factual paradox if you think about it, since a fact should reflect the actual state of things. But honestly, this all seems kinda odd and Leibnizian (like Monadology applied loosely). But still, something interesting to think about at any rate.


Honestly, truth is a predicate as well in my eyes since it denotes a property. I suppose what matters now is what predicate you choose to look at as being more primary. If the fact is that a pencil has the qualities (predicated) of long, yellow, wooden, etc, then there are objective qualities and a subjective undertone. A pencil is defined by its predicates (arguably) and the objective definition is somewhat universal. But the subjective quality goes deeper? like substrate deep. Facts have an objective framework, but a subjective interpretation. It's like the saying, "truth is a three edged blade, my side, your side, and the truth."



This is in many respects a restatement of your previous post #9. My thoughts as conveyed in post #11 is dependent on what particular perspective you take. Do you really think my true thoughts on the matter really matter in terms of a contributory post meant to help another member rather than spat out my own particular narrowed thoughts? Honestly, this thread is The Monkey's (hehe) world and all I am doing is putting out bits for him to consider. As to Einstein, Einstein's theory of relativity would probably acknowledge the fact that some events are past and some events are future, no matter what particular frame of reference we choose, and that each lie in an absolute "past" or "present" as far as this discussion is concerned.

On a side note, I have to say though, a faulty logic trap is easy to spot? just saying. Why you want me to contribute to it is beyond me.

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.

Let me make this very clear. My initial post #8 is in response to The Monkey? and the Monkey alone. I am not taking into consideration anyone else's points? just my recommendation to The Monkey. Again, I am not refuting anyone, just putting something new out there for The Monkey. Although the people who preceded me had very good points, I want to start with my own views and notions in hopes of providing another line of inquiry for the OP. I hope I am afforded that small principle as a member of the forum. Kennethamy obviously had a problem with my response (post #9), because it seemed to be "more complicated and obscure than it was at the start." He entered my conversation with the OP? not the other way around. What followed in that post was (perhaps to me at any rate) an obscure point he had in response to Jgweed and whether or not I agreed or disagreed with it. Not that I don't appreciate the discussion between Jgweed and Kennethamy, but that is between them? not me and the OP. And if it originate elsewhere, I don't care because it has nothing to do with the topic I raise with The Monkey's opening post.

Interestingly, I said the the crux of The Monkey's question is debatebale (from post #11). What does that mean exactly? It means that we all interpret The Monkey's question in different ways. I answered in my own way? and I also refuse to answer your own inquiries (post #9 and #12) depite the fact that you constantly restate them. Why? Because I am responding to someone else (The Monkey if that is not perfectly clear) and I honestly do not get much out of you to necessitate a protracted discussion because it usually ends up in some ridiculous I-said you-said. Interesting how that happened here and thank you for proving me right yet again. The logic trap I refer to is the restatement so many times of your particular segway in the conversation which I would imagine you want to be the conversation in particular. Why should I accommodate you?

In reference to your post #17, I suppose Zetherin is applying due diligence and asking what's up (as a moderator). I would be careful though not to choose exactly where Zetherin should stand though (putting words in his mouth as it were), because it is not clear that he does not get my point or that the context of the discussion is balanced in such a way where it needs to be addressed. That is for him to decide? not Kennethamy. Interesting how you would talk for another member like that. As for the rest of your post, I honestly do not care? I'm more concerned with The Monkey's response.

I would also note that personal attacks like the kind in post #17 (i.e. ... and why does he think (if he does) that...) are very uncalled for.