Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth.
There’s no such things as a false fact; if it is a fact then it is true. It’s true that people argue over facts, but actually they are arguing over the interpretation of facts, because once something is a fact it is no longer arguable. For example, it is a fact that fossils exist of animals that are now extinct. No one contests that; you can touch them. You may argue over the age of the fossil, how it got to where it was found, and on and on, but the fact of the existence of the fossil is not open to debate.
People confuse assertions with facts. An assertion is “a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief, often made without proof or support” (conflating two online definitions). Note that an assertion may be a fact, but not necessarily; not all assertions are true. So I’ve heard said “Donald Trump is not electable, and that’s a fact.” That’s easy; it’s an assertion and of course it’s not a “fact.” It would be better to have said “Donald Trump says things in his speeches that are so contrary and offensive to the majority of Americans that I can’t see any path that leads to him being elected as our next president.” It’s equally obvious why the former statement (assertion) is used; it’s much more forceful and lots easier to say.
More difficult would be facts as applied to science. Science is always searching for the “facts” that lie behind the observations we make about the world around us. So any reputable scientist will tell us “We know this (fill in the blank) to be a fact, based on our observations thus far. But of course future observations may cause us to change our understanding.” Sir Isaac Newton observed an apple fall to earth from a tree and developed the understanding and explanation of gravity. The “fact” is that gravity exists, things fall to the earth and we don’t go flying off into space. Newton’s explanation of exactly why and how that happened was considered proven for many generations, until Einstein opened up the whole new area of quantum physics. Newton wasn’t “wrong;” apples still fall to earth from trees, but our understanding of how that works has grown.
People often mistake this fact (see what I did there?), that the process of scientific discovery never ends, to somehow call into question the “facts” of science. They’ll take a scientific fact (gravity, for example) and with the awareness that underlying discovery process is never ending, conclude that we can’t ever really “know” anything. And if that’s true, then any explanation is as good as any other.
And there be dragons.
Facts have no emotion or judgment attached to them. But facts carry weight. If a new fact contradicts what you have believed to be true, honesty compels you to abandon what was wrong and embrace the newly discovered truth, regardless of the cost. This is the essence of both scientific and philosophical inquiry (they aren’t the same). Both will say “These are the facts as best I understand them; as new facts emerge I may have to change how I think.” Again, that doesn’t mean that I can’t use the information that I have now to make predictions or calculate probabilities; it just means that I have to go with the facts as they emerge.
That is very different from starting with something I “know” to be true and then cherry picking facts (or interpreting them as I see fit) to conform to these preconceived conclusions.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
Just the facts, Ma’am.
Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth.
There’s no such things as a false fact; if it is a fact then it is true. It’s true that people argue over facts, but actually they are arguing over the interpretation of facts, because once something is a fact it is no longer arguable. For example, it is a fact that fossils exist of animals that are now extinct. No one contests that; you can touch them. You may argue over the age of the fossil, how it got to where it was found, and on and on, but the fact of the existence of the fossil is not open to debate.
People confuse assertions with facts. An assertion is “a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief, often made without proof or support” (conflating two online definitions). Note that an assertion may be a fact, but not necessarily; not all assertions are true. So I’ve heard said “Donald Trump is not electable, and that’s a fact.” That’s easy; it’s an assertion and of course it’s not a “fact.” It would be better to have said “Donald Trump says things in his speeches that are so contrary and offensive to the majority of Americans that I can’t see any path that leads to him being elected as our next president.” It’s equally obvious why the former statement (assertion) is used; it’s much more forceful and lots easier to say.
More difficult would be facts as applied to science. Science is always searching for the “facts” that lie behind the observations we make about the world around us. So any reputable scientist will tell us “We know this (fill in the blank) to be a fact, based on our observations thus far. But of course future observations may cause us to change our understanding.” Sir Isaac Newton observed an apple fall to earth from a tree and developed the understanding and explanation of gravity. The “fact” is that gravity exists, things fall to the earth and we don’t go flying off into space. Newton’s explanation of exactly why and how that happened was considered proven for many generations, until Einstein opened up the whole new area of quantum physics. Newton wasn’t “wrong;” apples still fall to earth from trees, but our understanding of how that works has grown.
People often mistake this fact (see what I did there?), that the process of scientific discovery never ends, to somehow call into question the “facts” of science. They’ll take a scientific fact (gravity, for example) and with the awareness that underlying discovery process is never ending, conclude that we can’t ever really “know” anything. And if that’s true, then any explanation is as good as any other.
And there be dragons.
Facts have no emotion or judgment attached to them. But facts carry weight. If a new fact contradicts what you have believed to be true, honesty compels you to abandon what was wrong and embrace the newly discovered truth, regardless of the cost. This is the essence of both scientific and philosophical inquiry (they aren’t the same). Both will say “These are the facts as best I understand them; as new facts emerge I may have to change how I think.” Again, that doesn’t mean that I can’t use the information that I have now to make predictions or calculate probabilities; it just means that I have to go with the facts as they emerge.
That is very different from starting with something I “know” to be true and then cherry picking facts (or interpreting them as I see fit) to conform to these preconceived conclusions.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.