IS A "FACT" ALWAYS TRUTH?

OR IS IT AN AGREEMENT OR AN OPINION?


If a "fact" is not known, or recognized as a fact, then it is not called a "fact."

----> What is, is. <---- Right or wrong?

Do facts exist in and of themselves?

Can we truly rely on our perceptions alone to be sure of everything we call "fact?"

Or must we agree on what is a fact?

Creative said:
A fact is such because it has been verified through repeated observation/tests and nothing has been shown to deny it. That is what makes it a fact. Agreement alone does not make a fact what it is. That is just one element of a much more rigorous process.

---------------------------------------------
Jeanniebean said:
I did not say "agreement alone" makes anything a fact. BUT after "repeated observations and tests and nothing having been shown to deny it," it is finally AGREED on to be A FACT.

In any case the agreement MUST be part of the final conclusions in order to designate a thing a fact.
---------------------------------------------
Creative said:

So for you to say that it is just a 'matter of agreement' addresses only a small part of it. Facts exist in and of themselves. We just do our best to identify them.


--------------------------------------------
Jeanniebean said:

Maybe, maybe not. You are speaking objectively, I am speaking subjectively. If a "fact" is not known, or recognized as a fact, then it is not called a "fact." ----> What is, is. <---- That is what you are probably talking about. But in the world of what we call "facts" they could exist in and of themselves or not. We cannot rely on our perceptions enough to be sure of everything we call "fact."
---------------------------------------------------------------

Creative said:

I could agree with another that the world's troubles are all caused by something, yet that agreement alone does not constitute sufficient reason to establish that as a fact.


That example effectively denies the claim that a fact is just a matter of agreement.
-------------------------------------------
Jeanniebean said:

For information to get the proud and noble label "fact" bestowed upon it that MUST be agreement. If that information is truth, then it deserves that label, if not, then we are mistaken to have given it that label.

All I am saying is that there is always room for doubt about what is called "fact."

Good question. I guess if it is scientifically proven by the laws of physics it is a "fact", but only in our realm. Since everything is universally in a state of flux though you could theoretically argue that there really are no facts, only opinions.

The guy behind that turkey is a prolific masturbator.....THAT is a FACT!!!

I think a fact is someting that can be proven

Where do you come up with these off the wall ideas?

This one came up during an in-depth conversation on another thread.

ooooohhhhhhhhh. like these easy ones. there is no truth or fact. only agreement.

hahaha. "fact" is, nothing can be proven.

That is a very subjective point of view for one of your objectiveness.

To convince the target is when it is said to be "proven."

They will declare that you have 'proven' it.

You see, we do create our own reality after all. We decide what is fact and what is not fact. We decide what is real and what is not real. We decide what is proof and what is not proof.

Do things exist without an observer?

Do facts exist without agreement?

That is the question.

There are all kinds of facts: false facts, true facts, empirical facts, etc. The word "fact" alone implies some degree of truth.

Well, if we accept mathematics and physics then there can be no such thing as an absolute fact. Because both mathematics and physics has shown us that facts are indeed contextual and malleable.

Relativity shows us that all so-called "physical" facts (even in terms of time, position, mass, etc.) are only true relative to a particular frame of reference.

So it would be silly to say that it's a fact, that something in this universe has a definite physical properties because those properties can't be definite. They are entirely depending to the frame of reference of an observer.

So there are no "absolute" facts in physics. All physical facts are dependent upon a frame of reference.

Now we might take a step back and say, "Well that overall bird's-eye view must then be an absolute 'fact' of this universe. Well, it would seem that way at first. But since we can only imagine such a secnario and never truly experience then we must also confess that even that can only be an 'imaginary' fact.

So science can only make statements about 'imaginary' facts.

That's a 'fact' of science.

Mathematics tells us something quite similar. All mathematical 'facts' are entirely dependent upon the premises or axioms that have been accepted as the foundation of consideration.

In other words, if we consider geometry, we can assume a premise of Flat (or Euclidean Geometry), or we can assume a premise of spherical geometry, or we can asssume a premise of hyperbolic geometry. In every case we end up with different 'facts' depending on what assumptions were made as premises.

This tells us that even in our most rigorous discipline of logic, the determination of "facts" is entirely dependent upon our whimsical choice of premises.

So even mathematical 'facts' are nothing more than whimsical assumptions.

In short, we can't truly know anything. All we can do is build up imaginary and whimsical disciplines and pretend that we are creating 'facts' when in fact we're just blowing hot air.

But it's a lot of fun doing it anyway!

I think it can be fun as long as we don't start taking ourselves too seriously. When logic becomes a weapon used to try to claim that someone is being more 'logical' than someone else, that's when things truly become silly.

Like you say, it's about agreement. And that should be the ultimate goal when discussing ideas.

Well lets get some facts and test this.
Fact we are typing on an internet forum to communicate this topic.
How can we test this idea and verify it as fact?
What informs us about this fact?

We can test that idea and verify it as fact by observing.
Observation is what informs us about that fact.

Are those the right answers?

Wow! What an insightful observation Sky!

You've just proved Jeanniebean's case in like two sentences.

I stand in awe.

Aw shucks <shuffle>. 'Twarn't nuthin'

If I agree then is that a fact?

i understand from months with you on the forums that that's how you feel. and i've said for months that i feel differently. we keep covering the same ol' ground huh?



yes. the evidence suggests that the universe existed before there was life to observe it.



no. with or without agreement, facts do not exist. again, i offer this from stephen hawkings. i offer it not as back up for my position but because he says it better than i could in "the universe in a nutshell".

"A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct."




those are my answers.