This thread is about truth. That is reality.

Opinions can be about anything and they can be true or false
or delusional or fantastic. Opinions are not reality and have
no bearing on reality or truth.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary on "fact"

Synonyms: actuality, factuality, materiality, reality
Antonyms: irreality, unreality

so, fact is synonymous with reality or truth and opinion can be true or false having nothing to do with reality.

So there you have it.

This thread is not about truth.

And what constitutes "reality" is an opinion because no on can know what they imagine is "objective reality."

What is "true" or "false" is a matter of opinion because no one can know truth. They can only think they know or agree on what they think they know.

Either she has a robust figure or not. Either she is thin or not. Whether or not any given person finds a particular body type attractive is a matter of personal taste. Body type is not.



Truth is being conflated with personal taste/social convention here. We already know that social convention changes, however a person has body-type X regardless of whether or not social convention calls that particular body mass index "beautiful".



All things true or all things considered true at time t1?

It cannot be done, but not because there is no difference between the two.

Facts have the potential to effect your life whether or not you know of them or believe in them. It is a fact that being struck by a car travelling at 70 miles per hour is very likely to cause serious, possibly fatal, bodily harm.

Edit: This isn't the best kind of fact to work with, since it deals with probabilities, rather than certainties. It is easy to confuse the lack of guarantee of specific consequences with this being less a matter of 'facts' or reality. But - it does have the advantage that anyone who questions whether there is a difference between facts and opinions can test it out for themselves. (By dressing in all black and taking a walk on an unlit stretch of freeway at night).

All one must do is read the OP, and understand some of the discussion which follows to realize that the above claim is not true(does not match up to the case at hand). The OP briefly lays out one of the two most common theories of truth, that being correspondence theory(empirical and verifiable/falsifiable fact), the other one being coherence theory.

Many people hold that we cannot know anything(empirical verifiable/falsifiable fact). Some draw this conclusion because we know that our sensory perception and cognitive functioning capabilites are clearly fallible(empirical verifiable/falsifiable fact). I find that that conclusion makes no sense whatsoever(opinion based upon logical inference), afterall our becoming aware of our own perceptual fallibilities is a bit of knowledge in and of itself(JTB). Furthermore, in order to become aware of that fact, one must have found themselves to have been wrong about the way things are(inference from logical necessity). Our access is limited(emprical verifiable/falsifiable fact), for we know that we cannot perceive all that is. However, it does not follow that we have no direct access. For we must have some access in order to have come to know that we've been mistaken(logical necessity/contingency).

A mistake in thought is a breach between thought and reality(definition). When one thinks that things are a certain way, but it turns out that things are not that way, one has made a mistake(valid conclusion following from definition). We once thought that the earth was the center of the universe... we were mistaken. We once that time and space were absolute(unchanging)... we were mistaken. We once thought that it was possible to turn lead into gold... we were mistaken. We once thought that sunlight was required for life... we were wrong. We once thought that the earth was flat... we were wrong. Etc.

In my personal opinion, based upon my own experience, I find that some of those 'regular' people who vehemently argue against the notions of fact, reality, and 'objective' truth are those kinds of people who once put 'all of their eggs into one basket', and who've later had their entire belief systems be up-ended by fact/reality, much to their own dismay. So, they move their all of thier eggs from the one basket to the other in order to 'save' their beliefs and perhaps the mental well-being too. It can be very uncomfortable to acknowledge one's own mistake(s), and the act of doing so requires the capability. That capability is non-existent for those who deny reality, truth, and fact because those are the things - which are uneffected/unaffected by the way we think about them - that impose themselves upon us in such a way that we can no longer deny our having been mistaken, unless we hold that truth is subjective.

Denying them all allows a person to continue holding their own suspect beliefs, ones which they may not want to let go of for fear of having extremely unsettled internal states of mind. It's easier.

And yet there are still others who know better, who acknowledge cause and effect, who understand that many things are the way the are regardless of how we think about them, who are privy to the mechanics of social belief, who understand how things like common convention work in a society, who understand and who perpetuate the idea of 'subjective' truth for other - less than honorable/honest reasons. Knowing that the social convention accepts the notion of there is no truth(subjective), then they can get away with knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally spreading falsehoods for personal gain.

Ok, I'm parking the bandwagon and hopping off.

Runs into the back of the bandwagon...
Hey who parked this thing here?!?!?

I think truth is being confused here with facts. They are not the same things although they can be. The trick is to look for the exceptions to the rules. The search for truth usually searches for the exception to the rule as does scientific theory.

A fact is a fact. Period. Truth depends up definitions. If the body mass index of Marilyn Monroe exceeded the scientific, legal limit, she would be considered fat as a fact. She wore a size 14 dress. In this case the meaning of the word fat has a different meaning even though the definition is the same. MM was not fat.

A. Elizabeth Taylor was fat.
B. Elizabeth Taylor was the most beautiful woman in the world.
Was there an instant in time where A or B or both changed from fact to truth or vice versa? No. Truth depends up the set on which it is based. Acting ability is subjective. The bathroom scale is objective. In this case definitions make the facts into the truth ... or not.

Seems like the correspondence theory of truth isn't the only theory out there.

Hence this thread is not really about truth, its about a specific theory of truth.

It could be that fact and truth are being confused. The term truth is thrown about so carelessly that few could really tell you what they mean by it. That being said, my take on truth is a little unconventional, yet it works well with correspondence theory.



This offers us no help, metalwing. A fact is a fact equates to A=A. While being the law of identity, is totally meaningless without making a distinction bewteen A and not A. It is just as easy and just as unhelpful to say "truth is truth". "Period". This really tells us nothing at all about what constitutes being either - fact or truth.



I strongly disagree with this on several different grounds. However, in order to see this from as many different points of view as possible, I'll continue to follow your thinking here and see where it leads.



This makes fact wholly dependent upon common language. It implies that science determines the scientific, legal limit, and therefore that science sets out that which is considered to be fact. That may be where our viewpoints diverge, but we can get back to that later. Following this vein of thought, being considered "fat as a fact", is a purely matter of meeting/exceeding scientifically established standards. All scientific standards depend upon language, and therefore definitions. This seems to be self-contradictory. However, and this is an important but subtle distinction, that is not to say that man determines the quantified amount(s) regarding what the standard sets out as a limit. Perhaps it be better put... not all content within scientific standards is subject to(determined by/created by) our thought/belief. To quite the contrary, as clearly 'seen'(pardon the pun) with light speed, there are some limits within scientific standards that man merely becomes aware of. That is a critical distinction, and one that we'll need to revisit when talking about what constitutes being truth and the connective role that it plays in human thought/belief.

So then, getting back to the vein of thought which holds that meeting a scientific standard constitutes being "fat as a fact"... It would follow from you've written that to be "fat as a fact" would equate to one's being in the physical condition described within the standard. Facts, therefore, would require scientific standards.



If she met the scientific standard/limit for being considered "fat as a fact", whatever that is, then she must also be considered "fat as a fact". Wouldn't she?



I agree, there was not an instant in time where A or B changed from fact to truth or vice-versa. However, following along your thinking, if she were once thin but later became "fat as a fact", then there would have had to have been some 'instant in time' where she finally met and/or exceeded the scientific standard, would there not? At that moment, she would be "fat as a fact".



I don't see how this works.

Truth

This is nonsense.

Give you an example. It is true that earlier in this thread you wrote "what constitutes reality is an opinion".

This is a true statement it is not an opinion. I am quoting your
words. Everyone who reads this thread will see what you wrote. It
will not look different to different people. Thus there is truth
independent of opinion. People do not merely "think" they saw your
writing. They actually saw it and can read it again in a quote.
The same can be said for any documented occurrence.

The opinion that the WTC towers were destroyed on 911 is true. It is
well documented and it is a fact.

The opinion held by many children that the tooth fairy is real is
not true.



There are so many opinions which are not true. Any casual stroll
through the insane asylum can verify that.



We do not live in a world where delusional thinking is equivalent to
truth and reality. Read the article I posted on the nature of reality
from the Wikipedia for an elementary introduction to the subject.

JB,

Is it only an opinion that bringing the solid form of H20 to 400 degrees at one atmosphere (ice in the oven) will cause it to become liquid a few minutes, then eventually vapor?

Well, I'll take your word on that.(I've never actually seen it happen myself.) If someone told me the above was not true, and gave me a different story, then I would have to say there are two opinions on the subject. So, yes, it is an opinion.

In Colorado on top of Pikes Peak it may take 2 days to cook a pot of beans, and in Alabama the same pot of beans can be cooked in 30 minutes. These are things I believe having learned them from experience. I "think" they are facts. The details may be off a little depending on the atmosphere and pressure.

I might say that I 'know' something but I only 'think I know' how long it takes to cook a pot of beans.

The problem here is a vestige of Berkeley's Idealism that is being accompanied by an absolute refusal and/or the inability to admit having made a mistake. It is rather uncontentious to claim that we do not perceive everything as it is. The logic is impeccable, and the reasoning is sound. We have naturally imposed limits on our sensory perception and our cognitive functioning capability. Furthermore, it is quite clear that all statements come through a subject. All of this holds good, but...

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

It does not follow from the fact that everything comes through a subject that everything coming through is equally subjective. Nor does it follow from the fact that we've been mistaken about some things that we are or have been mistaken about everything. It also does not follow from the fact that we are limited in our access/ability to perceive reality that we have no ability/access to reality.

I... I mean... you...

You are being totally serious, aren't you?

You think its an opinion that ice melts at 400F at sea level because you haven't seen it yourself? And if someone asserted the opposite, you could consider these two statements to be 'two opinions' ?

Seriously?

If I completely sever your head from your body, is it only an opinion that your body would stop breathing, heart stop beating, and eventually all measurable CNS activity would cease?

Basically what you seek is an agreement that you are right.
If you severed my head from my body eventually all measurable cns activity would cease?

Yes, I agree.

Feel better now?

I don't know what the "opposite" might be in that regard, but someone might say that ice melts at 402F at sea level and maybe both people are scientists. Looks like two opinions to ME.

One could be wrong, both could be wrong, at that point I personally have to make a decision which one to believe.

Unless I did the experiment myself.

So, while each scientist making the claim might claim that their findings are true, one would have to repeat the experiment and agree on which person was right.

Then, the "fact" or the "true statement" is agreed upon.

*****

Consider a situation where you might be 'teaching' a person who has global amnesia and does not know anything about anything.

If three or four people tell them conflicting so-called 'facts' that person must consider that these so-called 'facts' are opinions.

All apposing points of view may believe that their 'facts' are correct. They all might have reason, logic and evidence to support their facts.

They must test them all and come to an agreement which one is true and which ones are not. This becomes an "established" fact by testing, observation and agreement. This is what science does.

They establish and agree on what is a fact.

After that is done, they are never wrong or mistaken. Right?

Right?

I did not claim that we have no access to reality. Defining ("objective shared") reality must be a group project. My claim is that no single individual can 'know' (for certain) the true "objective" reality. (A single point of view is extremely limited.)

In short, we need each other, and we need agreement to actually define this shared "objective" reality.

Yes, facts are what correspond to what we call "reality." Things are what they are. (Apart from human observation.)

Our observations, measurements, thoughts, opinions, experiences, discoveries, agreements, declarations etc. define what we think and believe them to be.

Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. That is where these things qualify as "opinions." (Perceptions, right or wrong.)

This post is meant to begin to lay out the difference between objective fact, linguistic "fact", truth and the relations between.

--

Facts are objective states of universal affairs.

It is an objective fact that the dog has fleas, if and only if the dog has fleas. Seems simple enough at first blush, but let's look at this in more depth. If the dog has fleas, it does so regardless of whether or not we check and see. I mean, that particular state of universal affairs is completely unaffected by our minds; in other words these events occur independently of our thought/belief concerning them. Our becoming aware of that particular state of affairs is another matter altogether. I'm alluding here to the aforementioned distinction between that which we become aware of and that which is a creation of our minds. Because thought/belief and knowledge are accrued with experience, our becoming aware of the world around us affects our subsequent thought(knowledge) about that which we become of, however, it does not follow that our thought effects/affects the objects of our awareness. Thus, objective facts are nothing more than states of universal affairs which are not subject to our mind. Thus, we can see why the fact/reality equation is put forth within strict correspondence theory.

Hence, it quickly becomes apparent that we need to make an important distinction here between an objective fact, as a state of universal affairs/reality which we become aware of, and a linguistic "fact" which is wholly dependent upon language, a tool of which we create. Linguistic "facts" aim to set out and describe universal states of affairs(objective fact) via language. It is a matter of language that a "fact" must be true. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that X is a "fact", and yet X is false. A linguistic "fact", therefore, is a statement that is true solely by virtue of it's correspondence to objective universal states of affairs. Linguistic "facts" are products of natural language. Natural language is completely dependent upon definitions. Therefore, linguistic "facts" are also wholly depend upon definitions, whereas objective facts are not, but sharing our understanding of them is. Thus, we can further lay this out by continuing with the earlier example...

"The dog has fleas" is a linguistic "fact" if and only if there is a state of universal affairs in which that which we call a "dog" has that which we call "fleas" living in and around that which we call "hair/skin". The dog itself exists with or without our giving it a name. The same holds good for the fleas, the skin, the hair, and everything else about that particular state of universal affairs. Because this is the case, a linguistic "fact" is the name given to a statement that accurately describes a state of objective affairs, and hence it is said that "facts" obtain truth via correspondence to fact/reality. So, here we clearly see that an understanding of a linguistic "fact" entirely depends upon understanding and properly employing the definitions of the terms/symbols being used in order to present this "fact" about states of universal affairs. So, linguistic "facts" are tools of language which we employ in order to set out that which obtains correspondence to fact/reality(truth).