No. What we call "fact" and "reality" is not determined by people, that is what the terms mean. They represent things that are not determined by people.

This kind of thought/belief treads dangerously close to confusing a word with what the word was meant to symbolize. Not everything we talk about is a product of language, even if we need language to communicate our thoughts. Fact and reality are two such things. The terms are products of language. We made the terms up. We did not make up what the terms symbolize. Thus to not be vigilant in use opens the doorway to a confusion and if repeated enough it will lead to a conflation between thought/belief and fact/reality.

This is a matter of language and what it does. The words 'fact' and 'reality' symbolize that which we do not determine and decide. Yes, people often use them in ways which do not follow this criterion. All I can say is that they're using them in an undisciplined manner, and doing that causes one to not know the difference between fact and opinion.

I know you are claiming that objective reality exists without observers and facts are facts irregardless of any agreement of observers but you are NOT hearing or understanding what I am saying.

People decide and agree on what they are going to call "fact."

The birds in the trees do not decide this, people do.



I know what the word "fact" symbolizes. It symbolizes the fact, not the fact that we call it a fact.

That we decide to call something a "fact" is determined by humans.

That the cup is on the table is a fact.
That we call it a fact is decided and determined by human observers.



Of course you believe that.



True, but still, a for a fact to be called a fact, observers must agree.

What you are saying is that facts exist whether we human observers know about them or not.

Right?



... which is your point of view. (opinion.)

About terms and what the term symbolize.

The term "tree" is a term we made up to symbolize and represent a tree.

A tree is an object. It is a thing.

A fact is not an object in itself. A fact is not a thing in itself.

So what is a fact?

A fact is a term that symbolizes that which is regarded as true.

And yet here it is called "a thing" that is indisputably the case.

1. A thing that is indisputably the case.
2. Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

If something is "indisputable" that means that it is obvious, probably for everyone. So a fact is something that is obvious, indisputable and everyone agrees it to be the case.

To disagree with an indisputable fact would be heresy, correct? Or would it be insane?

Does anyone ever dispute facts?

Yes, we have decided to call states of affairs that are not subject to our thought and belief about them "fact". That does not mean that everything that everybody calls "fact" is a state of affairs that is not subject to our thoughts and beliefs. It also does not mean that we "decide" the facts. We become aware of the facts, themselves.

No.



Of course. Facts are states of universal affairs.

Exactly. And that is all I was saying! We humans decide and determine -by observation- what(we think or believe) is the state of affairs and then we label it "fact."

That is all I was saying. I was not saying that facts or reality is subject to our thoughts and beliefs. (That is a different subject on a different level.)

You simply interpreted it incorrectly to the point where I had to completely reword the statement. You assumed I meant to say something else.

That is the kind of thing I encounter a lot talking to you.

You're conflating a fact with the term "fact".

Explain then.

Explain the process of how a state of affairs becomes dubbed "fact."

Sorry. I will rewrite:

The term "fact" is a word that symbolizes that which is regarded as true.

Or

The term "fact" is a word that symbolizes that which is true.

Which of the above is true?

And what if a thing is regarded as and called "fact" and is not a fact?

Anyone can call a fact something else. Anyone can call a fact a "fact", there need be no agreement on the use of the term, however, one who uses a term in an unusual way will tend to talk past another who does not.



Neither. A fact is a state of affairs. The term "fact" symbolizes whatever the user is referring to.



Then it is not a fact.

In objective cases no. When it comes to subjective matters like-"is x good or bad?", then it's almost all subjectivity.

That's not what you wrote. Here, look for yourself...

nope. each person determines his own reality by accepting what he thinks is fact. a christian thinks god creating the universe is fact and that becomes reality for him. a scientist never considers anything as absolute fact. a theory can never be proved. the evidence supporting the theory can be put to the severe scrutiny of the scientific method and determined to produce repeatable and predictable results time and time again but nothing guarantees that that the next test will support the theory. in that case the theory must be modified or discarded altogether but nothing ever proves the theory to be fact.

So what about my above statement is not true?

Thinking that X is the case does not make X the case.





Facts prove and/or disprove theories.

States of affairs that are not subject to thought/belief are not determined by it.

I understood it as it was written and it was wrongly put. You've yet to get it right. If you wrote something other than what you meant, then that is not a problem of my interpretation. That is a problem with your language use. Do you understand what I'm showing here? Undisciplined thinking leads to mistaken thinking.

Those are the 'on the edge of language' sort of subtleties that are exploited by the spiritual charletans of the world selling their brand of 'reality' to those who embrace and cherish the notion of the supernatural.

No, you are misinterpreting what I write and assuming I mean something else.

If humans don't interpret what the state of affairs are then who does?

If humans don't decide to call the state of affairs a fact, then who does?

You assume way too much.

You don't have to agree with spiritual knowledge, but you seem to be on a crusade against it to the point that you assume things and interpret things incorrectly.