Theories about facts

[Fluffy]

Does anybody have any ideas about what facts are?

My rather basic understanding of the concept is that a fact is something that makes a proposition true. For example, if my proposition is "All chocolate is brown" then this would be true if all chocolate really was brown.

The problem I have with this understanding is that I don't see how we can ever refer to a fact without actually referring to the proposition. How do I refer to the fact "All chocolate is brown" without actually talking about the proposition? The fact must be distinct from the proposition because some propositions are false but when we think about a fact, how can we think of it distinctly from the proposition that asserts it?

 

[!Fluffy!]

Fluffy:

That's easy at least from a debating standpoint, if I understand your post that is. There are facts. There are also suppositions, presuppositions, propositions and postulations around which you can structure an argument.

As I see it, a fact is merely a given (presupposition) agreed upon by opposing parties, if you are talking about it in debate terms. A basic platform from which to begin.

For example, there is no sense in framing an argument as to the origin or attributes of angels, if one of the parties does not and never will believe in the existence of angels to begin with.

 

[Willamena]

Does anybody have any ideas about what facts are?

My rather basic understanding of the concept is that a fact is something that makes a proposition true. For example, if my proposition is "All chocolate is brown" then this would be true if all chocolate really was brown.

Sounds like a tail wagging its dog. It would seem more reasonable that "All chocolate is brown" would be a fact only if all chocolate really was brown (i.e. if that was true); if the truth is known then the factual statement can confidently be made.

The problem I have with this understanding is that I don't see how we can ever refer to a fact without actually referring to the proposition. How do I refer to the fact "All chocolate is brown" without actually talking about the proposition? The fact must be distinct from the proposition because some propositions are false but when we think about a fact, how can we think of it distinctly from the proposition that asserts it?

From what I see (of what you say) fact is doing just fine hanging with the statement; truth is what must be made distinct from the proposition.

An observer takes in the world of information and breaks it down into bits, including facts. A fact is a piece of truthful information; it draws on truth to make statements that describe the world. Truth is a basic building block, a bit of information that we assign to solidify the world of information into something believable and trustworthy (what is false is unbelievable).

What you refer to as "the fact of all chocolate is brown" is "the truth of all chocolate is brown." The fact enters the picture when it is time to assert the truth.

That's how I see these things.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

fact = data

 

[Neo-Logic]

Fact is a popular idea, belief, of emperical proof that is supported by conclusive evidence or considered factual unless proven otherwise.

 

[Francine]

fact = data

Bingo. And facts organized into explanatory models are theories.

Theories are ranked as tentative, useful, and superb.

The theory that the earth makes its own oil and will fill up the depleted oil wells all by itself is tentative.

The theory that a free market functions as if guided by an invisible hand is useful.

The theory of descent with variation is superb.

 

[Somkid]

Fact is truth and if you are trying to prove something is a fact it must be universally true. For example if I throw a rock up in the air here in Thailand it will fall back down to the Earth if you throw a rock up in the air in the UK it will fall back to the Earth (I'm assuming I have never been to the UK) I have been however been to North America, South America, Australia, Africa and all over Asia where I can personally tell you if you throw a rock up in the air it will fall to Earth thus it is verified that with in the gravitational field of the Earth rocks fall down not up. You can say the same is true that there is no prime number higher than 2 or that 2+2=4 ever where. If you were to say all chocolate is brown you could not find evidence to support that statement as I suppose it is obvious that chocolate comes in white as well so you would be talking about a certain percentage of chocolate being brown not "all" which is what makes the statement false. If you were to say chocolate comes in many different verities that would be a true statement. You can apply this to almost anything in depth it gets into ethics.

 

[pert opinion]

Islam is the whole truth
Will Nostradamos faire is to give himself

 

[kai]

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

 

[Valjean]

A fact can be either an empirical datum or a theory with enough supporting evidence that dismissing it would be obtuse.

 

[doppelganger]

A "fact" is a piece of information, or as Jay aptly put it "fact=data". A fact could be a single data bit of binary information or a string of data bits that can be interpreted to render a symbol, image or model.

 

[Francine]

A "fact" is a piece of information, or as Jay aptly put it "fact=data". A fact could be a single data bit of binary information or a string of data bits that can be interpreted to render a symbol, image or model.

That's why people who say "Evolution is a fact" are wrong. Evolution may be true, but evolution itself is not data.

 

[doppelganger]

That's why people who say "Evolution is a fact" are wrong. Evolution may be true, but evolution itself is not data.

It is a fact, though. It's a string of data interpreted to render a model or image. As an ontological model and a scientific theory it's kind of confusing to talk about whether it's "true" or not. It is adjudged more or less probable than other models, depending on the context, including whether a person understands what a scientist means when she talks about the theory of evolution and whether a person has other purposes that necessitate not understanding it.

 

[Francine]

It is a fact, though. It's a string of data interpreted to render a model or image.

No, the string of data is the fact set. The model or image is, as you say, an interpretation, which can vary between tentative to reliably predictive.

 

[doppelganger]

No, the string of data is the fact set. The model or image is, as you say, an interpretation, which can vary between tentative to reliably predictive.

Give me an example of a fact that isn't composed of an interpreted string of data.

 

[Francine]

Give me an example of a fact that isn't composed of an interpreted string of data.

I don't believe you interpreted my post correctly. My position is that an interpreted string of data is a theory, and a piece of uninterpreted data is a fact. My objection is to the equivocation, when people say a compelling theory is a "fact", as though a theory itself was a recordable field observation.

 

[doppelganger]

My objection is to the equivocation, when people say a compelling theory is a "fact", as though a theory itself was a recordable field observation.

I understand the point you are trying to make. What I am saying is that every fact is an interpretation of sensory information. No ontological statement stands alone without some context, including "field observations." Every noun serves the purpose of carrying a packet of information that has to be unpacked in the mind of the person encountering it according to their own associations and memories. So the packet sent is not always (and maybe almost never) the same as the packet received.

This is one aspect of the problem of induction.