This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
AFAIC, the correct definition is a follows:
There has been a spate of people amending the article to introduce naive relativist ideas. Could editors revert to the definition about. Other definitions, typically along the lines of "true statement" or "verifiable observation" don't make sense with regard to the philosophy section. (The point being the difference between a true statement, and what a true statement is about).
Alternatively, discuss the issue here. 1Z 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't consider your revision to be "naive realist", I considered it to be constitute a change in meaning (from "the state-of-affairs reported by a true statement" to "true statment"). 1Z 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
a fact (is)...A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence, generally by other facts.
So, on this definition, if a statement is not proven, it is not a fact? Are you sure? Furthermore, if I assert that the sky is green, since this can be disproven on the basis of the evidence, you claim that it is a fact? I think the wording needs work. Banno 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
<marquee>==Fact, hypothesis and theory==</marquee>
This aspect of fact is woefully inadequate, considering it's linked from an article about a trial which touches on the issue of whether the theory of evolution is a "fact" or not:
The above definition confuses "observed fact" with "theory which explains what is observed". I boiled the material in a test tube, and it turned a certain color - that is a fact. Every time material like this is boiled it will turn that color - that is a hypothesis. If enough researchers can replicate my results, scientists will regard the hypothesis as confirmed. If too many researchers get different results (and it usually only takes a one or two), the hypothesis will not be confirmed.
It also doesn't say enough about hypotheses regarding past events. How can we see a theory or hypothesis "is a fact" when we can't conduct experiments in the here and now? Uncle Ed 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that definition of scientific fact is right, either, since it seems to disregard proof and simply cite evidence. That might explain why unproven scientific facts always get treated as regular facts..
Removed the following from the article:
This needs serious rewriting. JHCC (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to contain a good deal of naive relativism:
In other words, we must not believe that anything is absolutely true, because if we do so we become accomplices to mayhem and murder.
I find this naive and implausible. Given that there are strongly held beliefs that may qualify, it still strikes me as an absurdity. I am wholly certain that Paris is the capital of France. I'm not prepared to kill or even assault anyone for that belief. Moreover, many facts are indeed absolutely true; and this is in fact strongest for social constructions, if only because many such beliefs can be resolved finally and absolutely by argument from authority: Paris is the capital of France because the French government says so. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The edits from 23:04, 25 May 2006 are not a definition of fact. Particularly the last two paragraphs are a rant. - Ken Geis 18:48 4, June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be cautious of facts. Facts can be used for different things, and should be constantly revisted. Take for instance the scientific fact taught in grade school, "there are 9 planets in the solar system". Upon further review, this scientific fact is now under review. Read this CNN snippet:
"It is now increasingly hard to justify calling Pluto a planet if UB313 is not also given this status," Bertoldi said.
The claims of a 10th planet have re-ignited a debate over just how many objects should be called planets -- there is no official definition.
By the way, New Orleans is a city in the US. However, it could have been wiped out, and then taken off the list of US cities. - [Oglio's Point]
It is rather funny that the article on fact has a "factual" dispute. -- Jay( Reply) 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I culled out everything which stunk of original research and general ranting, and reorganized it a little bit. I saw nothing of encyclopedic value in the material I removed (nonsense about the timeless validity about the "facts of history" which any historian would laugh at). The article still stinks but if there are no objections I think we can remove the dispute tags. -- Fastfission 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I read a point of view from a certain philsopher that I cannot recall, and I whole-heartedly agree with it. This philosopher wrote that he believed there was a very thin line between fact and sensational perception. Each human perceives the world differently from another. Take religion for example: religion by definition is a set of beliefs intended to make sense of the world. Though science and religion are nearly opposite, science is in somewhat the same nature in that sense. Science can't prove or dissprove there is a deity or many deities for that matter. But, neither can religion. Both are just different systems of perception. Generally, Christians believe God created the world and assert it as fact (as in being the only explanation) because they don't know the origins of the universe and they essentially believe Earth is the center of all creation. Scientists, however, have the general opinion that a being that has always been here may not exist because there is also the possibility that the universe began as a spec of matter that reacted and exploded to create the masses of stars, planets, gases, etc. So, scientists don't really know how the universe came to be either. What I believe is that fact is just a majority opinion of people who perceive a theory in the same way. So, really if you think about it, humans just seem to be wandering aimlessly about the Earth, just living life. However, if one has this same opinion, then I guess you could say this contrib has no point. Wolfranger 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Before Columbus (& I mean long before Columbus) was "the Earth is round" a fact or a theory? Did it become less of a theory when the first photos of the Earth were taken from space? OR, was it always a fact and never a theory? How can this article ignore (at least in the lede) the relativity of facts? -- JimWae 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I tagged the article because the there is actual discussion taking place on this page about what constitutes a fact. It's at least humorous, and perhaps ironic that it is a "fact" that there is not an agreement among us on the subject. In all seriousness, I know what a fact is. I could construct several definitions and participate in discussions on the topic. But what is the point? This illustrates a major problem with a wonderful effort like Wikipedia. I love it but I also hold no illusions. Feel free to remove the tag. I've made my point. 24.22.176.47 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
^ your point has a hint of truthiness in it. :) 199.214.26.175 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is languishing because it really doesn't describe any single topic. I'd favor making it more brief and linking to related articles that go into more depth on specific aspects. For example, as the article mentions, the issue of what a "fact" means in science is a fundamental issue in the philosophy of science—but that should be discussed at the article philosophy of science, not here. And so on. -- Delirium 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Fact" has two principle meanings -- a state of affairs that a true statement refers to (as in the introduction) and a true statement. The artcle actually used the second sense, without expilictly endorsing it: "The truth of all of these assertions, facts in themselves..." 1Z 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is a contreversy regarding the nature of facts. For one thing, one could be unsure of the identity conditions of facts. There is the Gödelian slingshot argument discussed by Donald Davidson that there exist only one big fact. A conclusion that seem to be absurd.
I dont't know many philosophers that explicitly defends the view that facts are concrete entities, at least one of them is E J Lowe. A good reason against it is that the fact that Socrates was wise has wiseness as a constituent. And something that has an abstract part must be abstract.
I am not sure that a fact is a state of affair that obtains, partly because I am unsure of the nature of a state of affair. It seems much like a proposition that is true. But one role of facts is to be truthmakers for propositions, so they can´t be identical to true propositions.
RickardV 08:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with the philosophical part. The article says that the relationship between facts and true statements concerns epistomology, and I guess someone is thinking on the correspondence theory of truth. I am not sure that that theory is part of epistmology. First I think that issue is not very important in an article on facts. What is important is the nature of facts, and that is an issue in metaphysics.
I will wait a couple of days before I make an edit.
RickardV 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The Correspondence theory is currently categorised as epistemology by wiki.
"What is important is the nature of facts, and that is an issue in metaphysics".
That of course depends on what you mean "fact". The article follows the line that a fact is a true proposition. In which case it is epistemological, linguistic or psychological, but not metaphysical. However, people do use "fact" to mean what true beliefs correspond to -- states of affairs that obtain. The article should at least reflect that usage.
1Z 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think someone who believe that epistemological issues can be answered without metaphysical speculation have a little verficationist in them. But it is very wrong to think that one can get away with explaining the correspondence theory of truth without getting ones feeth dirty in the soil of metaphysics.
I am not sure that a true belief is a state of affair but that issue belong to the nature of state of affairs. Maybe one should say something about state of affairs and how it might be different from facts.
Ofcause people can think that the word fact means a true belief that obtain or what make a proposition true. One has to be clear about the different supposed meanings, but only one of them is true and here one need arguments. Are facts concrete or abstract? Do they have concrete or abstract constituents? Are facts identical to true proporsitions? Are their negative facts? Are there severeal facts or only one big fact? Facts that make propositions about nonexistent things true. These are controversial issues that should be answerd.
Some philosophers have believed in a colloquale and professional meanings, saying that a singel word could have two meanings, but other believe that conceptual analysis give only single meanings to words. (I am not here talking about ambigouties.)
-- RickardV 10:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing to explain correspondence theory without metaphysics.
I am not saying it is. My point was that these are two different definiitons.
I don't know where you got that idea. What's the One True Meaning of "plane"? 1Z 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The word plane is incomplete and I did not say that a single word can be presented and we ask for a meaning of that word. A minimum requierment is that the word appear in a sentence. And yes, then I believe the word fact has one single meaning. RickardV 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Or one meaning in the context, anyway. How about "time flies"? 1Z 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is ambiguies. The sentence stand in relation to severeal different propositions, only the intent of the speaker can tell me what it express. With facts I beleive it has only one nature, if facts exists, and that nature is revealed through some kind of philosophical analysis.
-- RickardV 07:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't say whether or not facts have one nature unless you can define "fact" in the first place. 1Z 11:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
Facts play an important roll in our life, right. If they don´t exist, that role is maybe played bu states of affairs, events or objects and universals. If facts play a role, they have a nature. Then there is a nature for facts. Now we have to test our intuitions against different definitions to see with definition fits the nature. (I hope, if I understand Fred Feldman correctly, my method is the same he uses to understand the nature of death. He offers several definition and tests them. -- RickardV 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Might it be better if the opening statement were to read "FACT is a Word generally used as a Noun in the English language, having differing Semantic properties depending on the Context in which it is used" ?. The qualifications "Philosphical", "Scientific" etc would then follow as explanations of the differing interpretations of the meaning of the word. Geoffrey Wickham 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Geoffrey, I like your interest but saying that the meaning of "facts" change in different context is like saying that "facts" work more like indexical concepts, like "I", "here" and "now", and that just don´t seem right to me. "Facts is used as a noun, but what "facts" refere to Philosophers disagree. But then another problem crops up, we need references, but I think there is some in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. RickardV 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
....Thanks RickardV. I understand that the Article evolved as a philosophical interpretation of the word Fact (or Facts?) but in doing so has produced an opening statement using the Jargon of philosophers; a statement which is incomprehendible to a general user of Wikipedia. If I refer to WP:CLARIFY I read " Explain jargon. A few words to introduce a term goes a long way towards helping a confused reader". While my suggestion regarding the opening statement may be questioned in philosophical terms, as you fairly did, I still suggest that an opening statement similar to my suggestion would " go a long way towards helping a confused reader". An alternative, of introducing text explaining the meaning of the jargon used in the opening statement would, surely, cause even more confusion. Regards Geoffrey Wickham 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"In common useage "fact" is a perception derived from the individual's beliefs."
This is incorrect for reasons given further on in the intro: perceptions and beliefs are not necessarily true. 1Z 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. May I dispute your deletion of my edit to the opening definition statement of the article Fact in which I wrote "In common useage a "fact" is a perception derived from the individual's beliefs". Perhaps my statement should have included "wrongly used', however to simply delete and to describe my edit as an incorrect statement is being unreasonable.
In common useage a person may say to me "Women drivers are worse than men, that's a fact" whereas what the person means is that, within his belief, women are worse drivers. The later editor changed my opening statement of definition to a better one; but to my mind an opening statement which defines what a fact IS, followed by my statement of what a fact IS NOT in common useage, greatly clarifies the definition to the common or average reader. It also seems to me that the final clause of definition "In "philosophy"...etc" should be deleted from the definition and included (in some form)within the subsection *In Philosophy. Regards
Geoffrey Wickham 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on some discussion and recent changes to this article, some reworking of the text is in order. If you have any comments or suggestions on how to proceed, please feel free to add them to this discussion page. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Items that are not yet in this article, but come to mind immediately :
This article could use some attention, hopefully others are interested enough to keep it moving forward. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
These are some (h) suggestions. &mdash Newbyguesses 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Updates: made some modifications to structure and added some content that hopefully matches with the overall purpose of what everyone's added so far. Added a "law" stub section and a "common useage" section that discusses the topic of personal opinion. I am planning on adding a quick example to the end of the lead section a little later, just for additional clarification ... unless anyone objects, or wishes to address any potential problems with the recent changes. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(I don't want to go on here on the Talk/Page about counterfactuals, but consider Agency (philosophy), which was namechanged from HumanAgency.) &ndash Newbyguesses 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This passage laboriously expresses some banal issues.
"Because every person has his or her own opinions that are based on personal experience,"
People don't exagerate the facticity of their opinions just because they are opinions, they do so to gain some advantage.
"many express some opinions as "fact" even though they have not been evaluated or verified beyond the limits of individual perception. Such "facts" may then be described as beliefs, or strongly held convictions. Establishing the validity of such beliefs is an epistemological concern".
No, not really. You don't need formal epistemology to make the common-sense distinction between opinion and fact.
This passage still doesn't get to the simple issue that this use of "fact" is a misuse.
1Z 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed from article:
In investigations a fact is an item of information that can be verified as either true or false. For example, the statement "the President is standing in the back of the classroom" is a fact because it can be verified as true or false by turning around and looking. In this context, "fact" does not imply truthfulness - only objectivity. If it is subjective (" The President is a snappy dresser") then it is either an opinion or a conclusion and cannot be verified. [1]
Whilst a decision is pending on any matter under consideration by an authoritative body, there may yet arise crucial considerations. An interested party may be severely disadvantaged by misunderstanding the fluidity of the state of affairs.
What are investigations such that they need their own section? Banno 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Cassell reference - "The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine", Cassell, Eric J. - is used to suport the statement that "Scientific facts are believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion."
It seems odd to use such a text, rather than a text on scientific methodology. Indeed, the science section might well benefit from better links to the articles on scientific method. Banno 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Propose removal: Unless someone has a compelling rationale for keeping this specific cite in, it seems appropriate to remove it, as the relevant section of the article has (at least minimally adequate) substantiation from alternate, more generalized sources. dr.ef.tymac 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to those of you who helped recently to improve this article, unfortunately, during course of your comprehensive overhaul, you removed quite a bit of content that had been discussed, refined and deliberated over by multiple contributors, as can be seen by reviewing the threads on this discussion page (those containing input from multiple individuals).
Consequently, I've restored the article to a prior version, and welcome any comments and feedback here, on the discussion page first, before any sweeping and dramatic modifications are done to the article itself. Thanks again for helping out. dr.ef.tymac 09:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've re-overhauled the article, integrating the recent changes with prior content, to help move the article toward the goal of better integration of all recent major contributions. Pursuant to this goal, the following changes have been made:
Comments and suggestions on any of these items are welcome. dr.ef.tymac 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: the science section has now been expanded, if any point requires clarification please feel free to leave a comment. Some of the pre-existing content seemed to warrant removal, so I commented it out (with remarks in the wiki code). Unless someone objects or wishes to clarify it, it should be taken out. dr.ef.tymac 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
From the introduction:
or a statement which can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation
A fact is not a statement, but what the statement represents if it is true. Suppose the cat is on the mat. The fact is that the cat is on the mat. "The cat is on the mat" is a statement of that fact. The statement of the fact is quite distinct from the fact. Banno 12:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem poor form to have an "Introduction" section after the introduction? The reason for this section is obscure. Furthermore, this section comes perilously close to a synthesis of published material, as proscribed by Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I suggest either removing or re-writing each item into a sub-section, or at least a more substantial paragraph. Banno 12:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, what is it this section is supposed to do or say? Banno 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. (emphasis in original)
You misunderstood, doubtless because of my poor expression.
>
From the article:
In philosophy, a "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, ie. the state of affairs reported by a true proposition [2] [3], or as a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal decision procedure. [4]
The first clause of this sentence repeats the definition given in the first paragraph of the article. The last clause repeats the error of confusing a fact with the statement of that fact. The citation - to wordnet - used in support of the second clause is to a non-philosophical source, giving a distinct sense of "fact" that is not restricted to philosophical discourse. Banno 12:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The references are the biggest improvement to the article. In accordance with the process User:Dreftymac has proposed, this editor will not be editing the article presently, until talkpage gets to a new (hopefully) consensus. Also, I have no words presently in mind. My suggestions (h) mainly concern presentation and language use: 1) Article needs expanding, so try not to take much out. 2) Some words I would take out - (Lead) precise definition / (1Aspects) introduction / (2..in Philosophy) defined , i.e.// rough draft for(3...in Science) - "In Science, a statement of fact is a statement expressing the nature of a situation which is stated as a fact because it is in accordance with valid observation, or verifiable repeated observations." If I could make that clearer, I would. Further suggestions: (1Aspects) gets the article off well, though perhaps relevance slightly tangles with discussion. (2.1 fact-value distinction) material seems to have something in common with the (problematical) (6 Rhetorical use...) - ie not quite Philosophy as presented. (are they mergable, then, but what is the overall structure of the article to be, precisely?) This editor does not agree with the removal of material concerning "In investigations a fact is an item of information that..." - my contention presently is that the section (12) should be retitled "Investigations of fact" - a crucial point, maybe, check this against my earlier posts to this page, and the fate of my (one was it, edit) the one on 19 May, at 14:47UTC. I am saying, there ought to be a section on investigation, though I am not sure precisely what it would contain. Stopping here, will look further when time permits, will be monitoring talkpage, since the synthesis of the material that some editors may supply is likely to lead to this article making it to GA status (i.e. good ideas are here, needing collaborative effort.) These thought on investigation - When the investigations pertinent to a particular discussion have reached a satisfactory point, then those conclusions reached, summarised in the form of statements concerning assertions/attestations as to the precise constituents of the current state of affairs are now called: facts. (I think I know what I mean here; perhaps other editors do/do not?) What are other editors thinking ? The article has to explicate Fact. So facts are the actualities that exist but facts are also those statements made, believed true and also the statements made at the end of investigation and what the judge says and a prediction that pigs dont fly or... User:Banno, are you saying that : (say) Bob said: "The moon is made of green cheese" is a statement by Bob. It is a fact that Bob made the statement. Dreftymac, are you saying : (say) Bob says: "The moon is made of green cheese" is a statement by Bob. Following investigation and discussion, certain parties have determined that "It is a fact that the moon is not made of green cheese" and this is a statement of fact, concerning (the current state of affairs) - does this clarify, or is my refactoring? innacurate. (Humble apologies then) — Newbyguesses - Talk 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Citation 15, to the Stanford Encyclopaedia article States of Affairs, in support of the assertion that a fact is defined as the state of affairs reported by a true proposition: The article does not mention propositions.
Citation 16, to Russell's work, is copied from the Stanford article. It also does not support the notion that a fact can be defined as the state of affairs reported by a true proposition.
Not that I doubt that a true proposition represents the facts. Representing the facts is what true propositions do, by definition. Rather, the writers have the cart before the horse. True propositions are defined in terms of the facts, not facts in terms of true propositions. It is circular to define facts as those things that are represented by true propositions. This is basic stuff. It looks as if the philosophy section has been written by non-philosophers - a common practice on the Wiki.
Citation 17, as mentioned above, does not support the assertion that "a fact can be defined as... a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal Decision procedure". Indeed, I doubt that any tertiary philosophy text would make such an assertion. Firstly, because statements and propositions may represent facts, but are not themselves facts (a philosopher would not use such careless languaeg); and secondly because very few philosophical theories (Rationalism may be the exception) would limit facts to the results of "formal procedures". Again, this section does not appear to be written by a person with a grasp of philosophy.
The article might be best served by a re-write by a competent philosopher.
The new material (with Hume article in) has helped, (Revise what I said immediately above.) I am looking again at what was taken out, but, really without a structure to write to, and some agreement on the talkpage, material is very hard to evaluate, as to where it fits. And the references have to be got right, letter-perfect, which I am only learning. — User: Newbyguesses - Talk 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I intend to do a re-work of this section as a good-faith effort to address concerns raised by another contributor to this article. Although the current content seems adequate (at least to me and apparently other contributors as well) I think reasonable efforts can be made to augment the content in a way that should prove even more widely acceptable. Rather than elaborate here I will simply implement the re-work into the article text at my next opportunity, and let the chip fall where it may. Constructive comments and feedback are, of course, still welcome. dr.ef.tymac 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
These updates seem to work well, setting out those aspects of the meaning of the word fact which are then set aside before addressing those other meanings which fall within the scope of this current article, and so a list does seem appropriate. – Newbyguesses - Talk 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the many new references recently added now address at least the majority, if not indeed all the issues raised concerning citations in the article up to Section 5 "Fact in psychology" at this time. If no one else does, or if there are no objections, I intend to remove these no longer necessary tags within the next few days. In detail,
— Newbyguesses - Talk 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The following unsupported material has been move to talk. Please feel free to replace it into the article, with appropriate citations. Banno 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In philosophy, a "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, ie. the state of affairs reported by a true proposition [5] [6] [7] failed verification, or as a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal decision procedure. [8] failed verification Generally, the term "fact" is distinguishable from the terms "proposition", " claim", "averment", and " allegation" in that the latter terms (and their synonyms) suggest statements that are not necessarily demonstrably true.
The relationship between non- trivially true statements (i.e. not definitions or tautologies) and facts is one of the provinces of epistemology citation needed.
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations. For example, the fact described by the true statement " Paris is the capital city of France" implies that:
- There truly is such a place as Paris;
- There truly is such a place as France;
- There are such things as capital cities;
- France has a government;
- The government of France is legitimate, and has the power to define its capital city;
- The French government has chosen Paris to be the capital.
- There truly is such a thing as a "place" or a "government".
The truth of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France. Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts. [9]
If you think any of the claims made in the two sections I have re-written are incorrect, let me know, and I will provide citations. Banno 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Banno, this is a side issue, but I must say your application and reference to WP policy throughout this entire discussion has been ... I will be charitable here ... "amazingly selective".
Per WP:V:
This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed. (emphasis not in original)
When reviewed outside of the "selective" word choice, we see that the qualification relates not to when material should be substantiated, but when material should be removed entirely.
Besides, regardless of what you might consider "foolish", a substantial portion of this very discussion page consists of people finding nothing but fault with the content of this article, even without bothering to forward citations or substantial improvements of their own. So, even with a "selective" interpretation of policy, it is very reasonable to assume that everything in this article is "likely to be challenged", hence my repeated and consistent reminders of pragmatic considerations for keeping this article in line and constantly improving.
One such consideration, and this should be glaringly obvious, is that the article should be thoroughly substantiated by references, in order to authoritatively stabilize the content, and attenuate (if not abolish) a lot of the "foolish" quibbling that you and I so justifiably disdain. Wikilinks are definitely better than nothing, but wikilinks do not count as references. Given the track-record of this article and its contributors, there is no such thing as "overkill" for references.
All of other the issues and questions you posed above are really straw-men, obviously everyone here wants the article to improve. Even if that's not the case, it really doesn't matter (to me) as long as the content keeps moving forward and is well-substantiated. dr.ef.tymac 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the material removed is abundantly cited, and the rest is not untrue or misleadng despite being uncited. As a comparison, I will add an article from another encyclopaedia verbatim:
fact. A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs
whose obtaining makes that proposition true. Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs. Facts possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations (though facts themselves are abstract even when their constituents are not). Thus the fact that Brutus stabbed Caesar contains the objects Brutus and Caesar standing to one another (in that order) in the relation of stabbing. It is the actual obtaining of this state of affairs that makes it true that Brutus stabbed Caesar. Difficulties for this approach do, however, arise concerning the existence of negative, disjunctive, modal, and moral facts. For instance, should we say that what makes the proposition that Caesar did not stab Brutus true is the fact that he did not, or rather the non-obtaining of the state of affairs that he did?
E.J.L.
(Oxford companion to philosophy)
I have emphasised a couple of points -- the compound nature of facts, and the problem of negative (etc) facts--which have now disappeared from the article, since they were in the text removed.
1Z 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the stuff about the citations not supporting the claims was spurious, as I have shown. 1Z 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points. The trouble with the Bhaskr quote is that it supports his own critical realist ideas, rather than being applicable to facts in general - that is, that facts are only found "through theoretical paradigms and are historically specific social realities" is POV. A better approach might be to add a section on the correspondence theory, which is after all the main theory of truth that makes use of facts, including a brief critique. Banno 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is also a bit rough to speak of philosophical paradigms. The word is so laden with baggage as to be near useless. Banno
Finally, "conflate" seems wrong. Philosophers are at pains to distinguish fact, objectivity, belief, knowledge and truth rather than conflate them. indeed, my own plan was to add a general text that would link to these other articles. Banno
The section also needs mention the distinction between events and states of affairs, and to link to the slingshot argument. Banno 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so one person says content is supported by cites, and another person disagrees, then the wheel goes round-and-round ... but if you re-add content to the article, can you at least make sure the addition flows and has continuity with the pre-existing text? Even if you do think the material is adequately referneced, that does not mean you should just cut-n-paste "wherever it happened to be the last time it was in the article". Arbitrary re-placement of content makes the article move backward, not forward. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
relevant - definition of relevant by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/relevant — which has this text (from Wordlink)
relevant adj 1: having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "the scientist corresponds with colleagues in order to learn about matters relevant to her own research" [ant: irrelevant] 2: having crucial relevance; "crucial to the case"; "relevant testimony" [syn: crucial]
– Newbyguesses - Talk 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This message is primarily for User:Peterdjones. Thanks for reviewing the recent major update to the "Fact in science" section. Previously, I requested that contributors take some effort to make sure the article remains cohesive and readable. (see Talk:Fact#Well-cited_versus_readable_and_cohesive).
Could you please take a moment to review your changes subsequent to my update to the "Fact in science" section? If you read closely, you will notice you re-added text that had merely been copy-edited (and not deleted) and now the article contains essentially duplicated prose in multiple places under the same section.
Also, I'd like to replace the Talk:Fact#Cassell__Citation that has been provided, as a more generalized citation (relating to more than just physicians applying a medical diagnosis) seems to be called for here.
Your contributions to the article are welcome and appreciated. Please, however, take some additional care to make sure you aren't mechanistically re-pasting content into the article every time it looks like someone has made a substantial modification to one of your prior contributions. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Could all editors discuss deletions on the talk page before making them? Thankyou. 1Z 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is here where considerations of "fact as assertion" come into play
Is that a recognised piece of terminology?
1Z 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"scientific assertions of fact" is clearer, although that is what the whole section is about, so it is difficult to see why it deserves special mention 1Z 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting your mistaken edit and content duplication. Now, to answer your question, there are two subsections in the "science as fact" section. Each of which deals with the two separate meanings of the term "scientific fact":
These two meanings of 'fact' are different, and this is why there are two subsections (this is all spelled out in the article text, please do read it). dr.ef.tymac 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you maintaining that the Scholarly Inquiry only deals with facts qua Sstates-of-affairs?
So how does one make sense of: "the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;"
Why would a state-of-affairs need to become established? 1Z 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You imply it with your comment:
If you see something in the article that leads to an unambiguously ridiculous conclusion, (such as states of affairs need to be "established") you can be pretty confident that is an implication that should not be in there. Feel free to fix or clarify, as long as the article improves that's the primary goal, right?
"For example, an assertion that purports to represent scientific fact must be, according to many accounts, falsifiable and coherent".
Actually, its theories that are supposed to be falsifiable. Facts are just supposed to be true (assertions). And the accuracy of facts is supposed to be established by repeated confirmation by observers... 1Z 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.
I'm happy to take turns, you have yet to answer my question. I've answered many of yours, even helped you locate and correct your mistakes in the article. All of which I'm happy to do if it means improving the article. And now for the simple "yes no" portion of the interview:
I await your "yes or no" responses. That will help me answer you. dr.ef.tymac 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you didn't supply any references beyond wikilinks for your falsifiability claim so there is no yes or no answer to that. 1Z 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've taken out the "falsifiability" and "fact as assertion" items ... hopefully that will obviate the need for this detailed discussion and allow contributors to focus on whatever other issues there are. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to compliment the cooperative, even if competitive and occasionally contentious, effort to improve the article. In my opinion it presently is significantly improved from before. At least it reads like a fairly coherent presentation of the main issues, a good starting point from which to improve further as the opportunity arises. Kudos to all, because it's a bit of a tough topic to write about. ... Kenosis 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
AFAIC, the correct definition is a follows:
There has been a spate of people amending the article to introduce naive relativist ideas. Could editors revert to the definition about. Other definitions, typically along the lines of "true statement" or "verifiable observation" don't make sense with regard to the philosophy section. (The point being the difference between a true statement, and what a true statement is about).
Alternatively, discuss the issue here. 1Z 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't consider your revision to be "naive realist", I considered it to be constitute a change in meaning (from "the state-of-affairs reported by a true statement" to "true statment"). 1Z 20:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
a fact (is)...A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence, generally by other facts.
So, on this definition, if a statement is not proven, it is not a fact? Are you sure? Furthermore, if I assert that the sky is green, since this can be disproven on the basis of the evidence, you claim that it is a fact? I think the wording needs work. Banno 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
<marquee>==Fact, hypothesis and theory==</marquee>
This aspect of fact is woefully inadequate, considering it's linked from an article about a trial which touches on the issue of whether the theory of evolution is a "fact" or not:
The above definition confuses "observed fact" with "theory which explains what is observed". I boiled the material in a test tube, and it turned a certain color - that is a fact. Every time material like this is boiled it will turn that color - that is a hypothesis. If enough researchers can replicate my results, scientists will regard the hypothesis as confirmed. If too many researchers get different results (and it usually only takes a one or two), the hypothesis will not be confirmed.
It also doesn't say enough about hypotheses regarding past events. How can we see a theory or hypothesis "is a fact" when we can't conduct experiments in the here and now? Uncle Ed 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that definition of scientific fact is right, either, since it seems to disregard proof and simply cite evidence. That might explain why unproven scientific facts always get treated as regular facts..
Removed the following from the article:
This needs serious rewriting. JHCC (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to contain a good deal of naive relativism:
In other words, we must not believe that anything is absolutely true, because if we do so we become accomplices to mayhem and murder.
I find this naive and implausible. Given that there are strongly held beliefs that may qualify, it still strikes me as an absurdity. I am wholly certain that Paris is the capital of France. I'm not prepared to kill or even assault anyone for that belief. Moreover, many facts are indeed absolutely true; and this is in fact strongest for social constructions, if only because many such beliefs can be resolved finally and absolutely by argument from authority: Paris is the capital of France because the French government says so. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The edits from 23:04, 25 May 2006 are not a definition of fact. Particularly the last two paragraphs are a rant. - Ken Geis 18:48 4, June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should be cautious of facts. Facts can be used for different things, and should be constantly revisted. Take for instance the scientific fact taught in grade school, "there are 9 planets in the solar system". Upon further review, this scientific fact is now under review. Read this CNN snippet:
"It is now increasingly hard to justify calling Pluto a planet if UB313 is not also given this status," Bertoldi said.
The claims of a 10th planet have re-ignited a debate over just how many objects should be called planets -- there is no official definition.
By the way, New Orleans is a city in the US. However, it could have been wiped out, and then taken off the list of US cities. - [Oglio's Point]
It is rather funny that the article on fact has a "factual" dispute. -- Jay( Reply) 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I culled out everything which stunk of original research and general ranting, and reorganized it a little bit. I saw nothing of encyclopedic value in the material I removed (nonsense about the timeless validity about the "facts of history" which any historian would laugh at). The article still stinks but if there are no objections I think we can remove the dispute tags. -- Fastfission 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I read a point of view from a certain philsopher that I cannot recall, and I whole-heartedly agree with it. This philosopher wrote that he believed there was a very thin line between fact and sensational perception. Each human perceives the world differently from another. Take religion for example: religion by definition is a set of beliefs intended to make sense of the world. Though science and religion are nearly opposite, science is in somewhat the same nature in that sense. Science can't prove or dissprove there is a deity or many deities for that matter. But, neither can religion. Both are just different systems of perception. Generally, Christians believe God created the world and assert it as fact (as in being the only explanation) because they don't know the origins of the universe and they essentially believe Earth is the center of all creation. Scientists, however, have the general opinion that a being that has always been here may not exist because there is also the possibility that the universe began as a spec of matter that reacted and exploded to create the masses of stars, planets, gases, etc. So, scientists don't really know how the universe came to be either. What I believe is that fact is just a majority opinion of people who perceive a theory in the same way. So, really if you think about it, humans just seem to be wandering aimlessly about the Earth, just living life. However, if one has this same opinion, then I guess you could say this contrib has no point. Wolfranger 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Before Columbus (& I mean long before Columbus) was "the Earth is round" a fact or a theory? Did it become less of a theory when the first photos of the Earth were taken from space? OR, was it always a fact and never a theory? How can this article ignore (at least in the lede) the relativity of facts? -- JimWae 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I tagged the article because the there is actual discussion taking place on this page about what constitutes a fact. It's at least humorous, and perhaps ironic that it is a "fact" that there is not an agreement among us on the subject. In all seriousness, I know what a fact is. I could construct several definitions and participate in discussions on the topic. But what is the point? This illustrates a major problem with a wonderful effort like Wikipedia. I love it but I also hold no illusions. Feel free to remove the tag. I've made my point. 24.22.176.47 04:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
^ your point has a hint of truthiness in it. :) 199.214.26.175 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is languishing because it really doesn't describe any single topic. I'd favor making it more brief and linking to related articles that go into more depth on specific aspects. For example, as the article mentions, the issue of what a "fact" means in science is a fundamental issue in the philosophy of science—but that should be discussed at the article philosophy of science, not here. And so on. -- Delirium 05:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Fact" has two principle meanings -- a state of affairs that a true statement refers to (as in the introduction) and a true statement. The artcle actually used the second sense, without expilictly endorsing it: "The truth of all of these assertions, facts in themselves..." 1Z 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is a contreversy regarding the nature of facts. For one thing, one could be unsure of the identity conditions of facts. There is the Gödelian slingshot argument discussed by Donald Davidson that there exist only one big fact. A conclusion that seem to be absurd.
I dont't know many philosophers that explicitly defends the view that facts are concrete entities, at least one of them is E J Lowe. A good reason against it is that the fact that Socrates was wise has wiseness as a constituent. And something that has an abstract part must be abstract.
I am not sure that a fact is a state of affair that obtains, partly because I am unsure of the nature of a state of affair. It seems much like a proposition that is true. But one role of facts is to be truthmakers for propositions, so they can´t be identical to true propositions.
RickardV 08:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with the philosophical part. The article says that the relationship between facts and true statements concerns epistomology, and I guess someone is thinking on the correspondence theory of truth. I am not sure that that theory is part of epistmology. First I think that issue is not very important in an article on facts. What is important is the nature of facts, and that is an issue in metaphysics.
I will wait a couple of days before I make an edit.
RickardV 16:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The Correspondence theory is currently categorised as epistemology by wiki.
"What is important is the nature of facts, and that is an issue in metaphysics".
That of course depends on what you mean "fact". The article follows the line that a fact is a true proposition. In which case it is epistemological, linguistic or psychological, but not metaphysical. However, people do use "fact" to mean what true beliefs correspond to -- states of affairs that obtain. The article should at least reflect that usage.
1Z 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think someone who believe that epistemological issues can be answered without metaphysical speculation have a little verficationist in them. But it is very wrong to think that one can get away with explaining the correspondence theory of truth without getting ones feeth dirty in the soil of metaphysics.
I am not sure that a true belief is a state of affair but that issue belong to the nature of state of affairs. Maybe one should say something about state of affairs and how it might be different from facts.
Ofcause people can think that the word fact means a true belief that obtain or what make a proposition true. One has to be clear about the different supposed meanings, but only one of them is true and here one need arguments. Are facts concrete or abstract? Do they have concrete or abstract constituents? Are facts identical to true proporsitions? Are their negative facts? Are there severeal facts or only one big fact? Facts that make propositions about nonexistent things true. These are controversial issues that should be answerd.
Some philosophers have believed in a colloquale and professional meanings, saying that a singel word could have two meanings, but other believe that conceptual analysis give only single meanings to words. (I am not here talking about ambigouties.)
-- RickardV 10:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing to explain correspondence theory without metaphysics.
I am not saying it is. My point was that these are two different definiitons.
I don't know where you got that idea. What's the One True Meaning of "plane"? 1Z 18:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The word plane is incomplete and I did not say that a single word can be presented and we ask for a meaning of that word. A minimum requierment is that the word appear in a sentence. And yes, then I believe the word fact has one single meaning. RickardV 21:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Or one meaning in the context, anyway. How about "time flies"? 1Z 22:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That sentence is ambiguies. The sentence stand in relation to severeal different propositions, only the intent of the speaker can tell me what it express. With facts I beleive it has only one nature, if facts exists, and that nature is revealed through some kind of philosophical analysis.
-- RickardV 07:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You can't say whether or not facts have one nature unless you can define "fact" in the first place. 1Z 11:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you are putting the cart before the horse.
Facts play an important roll in our life, right. If they don´t exist, that role is maybe played bu states of affairs, events or objects and universals. If facts play a role, they have a nature. Then there is a nature for facts. Now we have to test our intuitions against different definitions to see with definition fits the nature. (I hope, if I understand Fred Feldman correctly, my method is the same he uses to understand the nature of death. He offers several definition and tests them. -- RickardV 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Might it be better if the opening statement were to read "FACT is a Word generally used as a Noun in the English language, having differing Semantic properties depending on the Context in which it is used" ?. The qualifications "Philosphical", "Scientific" etc would then follow as explanations of the differing interpretations of the meaning of the word. Geoffrey Wickham 05:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Geoffrey, I like your interest but saying that the meaning of "facts" change in different context is like saying that "facts" work more like indexical concepts, like "I", "here" and "now", and that just don´t seem right to me. "Facts is used as a noun, but what "facts" refere to Philosophers disagree. But then another problem crops up, we need references, but I think there is some in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. RickardV 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
....Thanks RickardV. I understand that the Article evolved as a philosophical interpretation of the word Fact (or Facts?) but in doing so has produced an opening statement using the Jargon of philosophers; a statement which is incomprehendible to a general user of Wikipedia. If I refer to WP:CLARIFY I read " Explain jargon. A few words to introduce a term goes a long way towards helping a confused reader". While my suggestion regarding the opening statement may be questioned in philosophical terms, as you fairly did, I still suggest that an opening statement similar to my suggestion would " go a long way towards helping a confused reader". An alternative, of introducing text explaining the meaning of the jargon used in the opening statement would, surely, cause even more confusion. Regards Geoffrey Wickham 04:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"In common useage "fact" is a perception derived from the individual's beliefs."
This is incorrect for reasons given further on in the intro: perceptions and beliefs are not necessarily true. 1Z 12:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. May I dispute your deletion of my edit to the opening definition statement of the article Fact in which I wrote "In common useage a "fact" is a perception derived from the individual's beliefs". Perhaps my statement should have included "wrongly used', however to simply delete and to describe my edit as an incorrect statement is being unreasonable.
In common useage a person may say to me "Women drivers are worse than men, that's a fact" whereas what the person means is that, within his belief, women are worse drivers. The later editor changed my opening statement of definition to a better one; but to my mind an opening statement which defines what a fact IS, followed by my statement of what a fact IS NOT in common useage, greatly clarifies the definition to the common or average reader. It also seems to me that the final clause of definition "In "philosophy"...etc" should be deleted from the definition and included (in some form)within the subsection *In Philosophy. Regards
Geoffrey Wickham 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on some discussion and recent changes to this article, some reworking of the text is in order. If you have any comments or suggestions on how to proceed, please feel free to add them to this discussion page. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Items that are not yet in this article, but come to mind immediately :
This article could use some attention, hopefully others are interested enough to keep it moving forward. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
These are some (h) suggestions. &mdash Newbyguesses 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Updates: made some modifications to structure and added some content that hopefully matches with the overall purpose of what everyone's added so far. Added a "law" stub section and a "common useage" section that discusses the topic of personal opinion. I am planning on adding a quick example to the end of the lead section a little later, just for additional clarification ... unless anyone objects, or wishes to address any potential problems with the recent changes. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
(I don't want to go on here on the Talk/Page about counterfactuals, but consider Agency (philosophy), which was namechanged from HumanAgency.) &ndash Newbyguesses 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This passage laboriously expresses some banal issues.
"Because every person has his or her own opinions that are based on personal experience,"
People don't exagerate the facticity of their opinions just because they are opinions, they do so to gain some advantage.
"many express some opinions as "fact" even though they have not been evaluated or verified beyond the limits of individual perception. Such "facts" may then be described as beliefs, or strongly held convictions. Establishing the validity of such beliefs is an epistemological concern".
No, not really. You don't need formal epistemology to make the common-sense distinction between opinion and fact.
This passage still doesn't get to the simple issue that this use of "fact" is a misuse.
1Z 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed from article:
In investigations a fact is an item of information that can be verified as either true or false. For example, the statement "the President is standing in the back of the classroom" is a fact because it can be verified as true or false by turning around and looking. In this context, "fact" does not imply truthfulness - only objectivity. If it is subjective (" The President is a snappy dresser") then it is either an opinion or a conclusion and cannot be verified. [1]
Whilst a decision is pending on any matter under consideration by an authoritative body, there may yet arise crucial considerations. An interested party may be severely disadvantaged by misunderstanding the fluidity of the state of affairs.
What are investigations such that they need their own section? Banno 21:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Cassell reference - "The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine", Cassell, Eric J. - is used to suport the statement that "Scientific facts are believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion."
It seems odd to use such a text, rather than a text on scientific methodology. Indeed, the science section might well benefit from better links to the articles on scientific method. Banno 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Propose removal: Unless someone has a compelling rationale for keeping this specific cite in, it seems appropriate to remove it, as the relevant section of the article has (at least minimally adequate) substantiation from alternate, more generalized sources. dr.ef.tymac 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to those of you who helped recently to improve this article, unfortunately, during course of your comprehensive overhaul, you removed quite a bit of content that had been discussed, refined and deliberated over by multiple contributors, as can be seen by reviewing the threads on this discussion page (those containing input from multiple individuals).
Consequently, I've restored the article to a prior version, and welcome any comments and feedback here, on the discussion page first, before any sweeping and dramatic modifications are done to the article itself. Thanks again for helping out. dr.ef.tymac 09:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've re-overhauled the article, integrating the recent changes with prior content, to help move the article toward the goal of better integration of all recent major contributions. Pursuant to this goal, the following changes have been made:
Comments and suggestions on any of these items are welcome. dr.ef.tymac 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: the science section has now been expanded, if any point requires clarification please feel free to leave a comment. Some of the pre-existing content seemed to warrant removal, so I commented it out (with remarks in the wiki code). Unless someone objects or wishes to clarify it, it should be taken out. dr.ef.tymac 17:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
From the introduction:
or a statement which can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation
A fact is not a statement, but what the statement represents if it is true. Suppose the cat is on the mat. The fact is that the cat is on the mat. "The cat is on the mat" is a statement of that fact. The statement of the fact is quite distinct from the fact. Banno 12:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it seem poor form to have an "Introduction" section after the introduction? The reason for this section is obscure. Furthermore, this section comes perilously close to a synthesis of published material, as proscribed by Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I suggest either removing or re-writing each item into a sub-section, or at least a more substantial paragraph. Banno 12:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, what is it this section is supposed to do or say? Banno 12:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia. (emphasis in original)
You misunderstood, doubtless because of my poor expression.
>
From the article:
In philosophy, a "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, ie. the state of affairs reported by a true proposition [2] [3], or as a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal decision procedure. [4]
The first clause of this sentence repeats the definition given in the first paragraph of the article. The last clause repeats the error of confusing a fact with the statement of that fact. The citation - to wordnet - used in support of the second clause is to a non-philosophical source, giving a distinct sense of "fact" that is not restricted to philosophical discourse. Banno 12:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The references are the biggest improvement to the article. In accordance with the process User:Dreftymac has proposed, this editor will not be editing the article presently, until talkpage gets to a new (hopefully) consensus. Also, I have no words presently in mind. My suggestions (h) mainly concern presentation and language use: 1) Article needs expanding, so try not to take much out. 2) Some words I would take out - (Lead) precise definition / (1Aspects) introduction / (2..in Philosophy) defined , i.e.// rough draft for(3...in Science) - "In Science, a statement of fact is a statement expressing the nature of a situation which is stated as a fact because it is in accordance with valid observation, or verifiable repeated observations." If I could make that clearer, I would. Further suggestions: (1Aspects) gets the article off well, though perhaps relevance slightly tangles with discussion. (2.1 fact-value distinction) material seems to have something in common with the (problematical) (6 Rhetorical use...) - ie not quite Philosophy as presented. (are they mergable, then, but what is the overall structure of the article to be, precisely?) This editor does not agree with the removal of material concerning "In investigations a fact is an item of information that..." - my contention presently is that the section (12) should be retitled "Investigations of fact" - a crucial point, maybe, check this against my earlier posts to this page, and the fate of my (one was it, edit) the one on 19 May, at 14:47UTC. I am saying, there ought to be a section on investigation, though I am not sure precisely what it would contain. Stopping here, will look further when time permits, will be monitoring talkpage, since the synthesis of the material that some editors may supply is likely to lead to this article making it to GA status (i.e. good ideas are here, needing collaborative effort.) These thought on investigation - When the investigations pertinent to a particular discussion have reached a satisfactory point, then those conclusions reached, summarised in the form of statements concerning assertions/attestations as to the precise constituents of the current state of affairs are now called: facts. (I think I know what I mean here; perhaps other editors do/do not?) What are other editors thinking ? The article has to explicate Fact. So facts are the actualities that exist but facts are also those statements made, believed true and also the statements made at the end of investigation and what the judge says and a prediction that pigs dont fly or... User:Banno, are you saying that : (say) Bob said: "The moon is made of green cheese" is a statement by Bob. It is a fact that Bob made the statement. Dreftymac, are you saying : (say) Bob says: "The moon is made of green cheese" is a statement by Bob. Following investigation and discussion, certain parties have determined that "It is a fact that the moon is not made of green cheese" and this is a statement of fact, concerning (the current state of affairs) - does this clarify, or is my refactoring? innacurate. (Humble apologies then) — Newbyguesses - Talk 12:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Citation 15, to the Stanford Encyclopaedia article States of Affairs, in support of the assertion that a fact is defined as the state of affairs reported by a true proposition: The article does not mention propositions.
Citation 16, to Russell's work, is copied from the Stanford article. It also does not support the notion that a fact can be defined as the state of affairs reported by a true proposition.
Not that I doubt that a true proposition represents the facts. Representing the facts is what true propositions do, by definition. Rather, the writers have the cart before the horse. True propositions are defined in terms of the facts, not facts in terms of true propositions. It is circular to define facts as those things that are represented by true propositions. This is basic stuff. It looks as if the philosophy section has been written by non-philosophers - a common practice on the Wiki.
Citation 17, as mentioned above, does not support the assertion that "a fact can be defined as... a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal Decision procedure". Indeed, I doubt that any tertiary philosophy text would make such an assertion. Firstly, because statements and propositions may represent facts, but are not themselves facts (a philosopher would not use such careless languaeg); and secondly because very few philosophical theories (Rationalism may be the exception) would limit facts to the results of "formal procedures". Again, this section does not appear to be written by a person with a grasp of philosophy.
The article might be best served by a re-write by a competent philosopher.
The new material (with Hume article in) has helped, (Revise what I said immediately above.) I am looking again at what was taken out, but, really without a structure to write to, and some agreement on the talkpage, material is very hard to evaluate, as to where it fits. And the references have to be got right, letter-perfect, which I am only learning. — User: Newbyguesses - Talk 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I intend to do a re-work of this section as a good-faith effort to address concerns raised by another contributor to this article. Although the current content seems adequate (at least to me and apparently other contributors as well) I think reasonable efforts can be made to augment the content in a way that should prove even more widely acceptable. Rather than elaborate here I will simply implement the re-work into the article text at my next opportunity, and let the chip fall where it may. Constructive comments and feedback are, of course, still welcome. dr.ef.tymac 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
These updates seem to work well, setting out those aspects of the meaning of the word fact which are then set aside before addressing those other meanings which fall within the scope of this current article, and so a list does seem appropriate. – Newbyguesses - Talk 16:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the many new references recently added now address at least the majority, if not indeed all the issues raised concerning citations in the article up to Section 5 "Fact in psychology" at this time. If no one else does, or if there are no objections, I intend to remove these no longer necessary tags within the next few days. In detail,
— Newbyguesses - Talk 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The following unsupported material has been move to talk. Please feel free to replace it into the article, with appropriate citations. Banno 08:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In philosophy, a "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, ie. the state of affairs reported by a true proposition [5] [6] [7] failed verification, or as a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal decision procedure. [8] failed verification Generally, the term "fact" is distinguishable from the terms "proposition", " claim", "averment", and " allegation" in that the latter terms (and their synonyms) suggest statements that are not necessarily demonstrably true.
The relationship between non- trivially true statements (i.e. not definitions or tautologies) and facts is one of the provinces of epistemology citation needed.
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations. For example, the fact described by the true statement " Paris is the capital city of France" implies that:
- There truly is such a place as Paris;
- There truly is such a place as France;
- There are such things as capital cities;
- France has a government;
- The government of France is legitimate, and has the power to define its capital city;
- The French government has chosen Paris to be the capital.
- There truly is such a thing as a "place" or a "government".
The truth of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France. Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts. [9]
If you think any of the claims made in the two sections I have re-written are incorrect, let me know, and I will provide citations. Banno 18:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Banno, this is a side issue, but I must say your application and reference to WP policy throughout this entire discussion has been ... I will be charitable here ... "amazingly selective".
Per WP:V:
This page in a nutshell: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed. (emphasis not in original)
When reviewed outside of the "selective" word choice, we see that the qualification relates not to when material should be substantiated, but when material should be removed entirely.
Besides, regardless of what you might consider "foolish", a substantial portion of this very discussion page consists of people finding nothing but fault with the content of this article, even without bothering to forward citations or substantial improvements of their own. So, even with a "selective" interpretation of policy, it is very reasonable to assume that everything in this article is "likely to be challenged", hence my repeated and consistent reminders of pragmatic considerations for keeping this article in line and constantly improving.
One such consideration, and this should be glaringly obvious, is that the article should be thoroughly substantiated by references, in order to authoritatively stabilize the content, and attenuate (if not abolish) a lot of the "foolish" quibbling that you and I so justifiably disdain. Wikilinks are definitely better than nothing, but wikilinks do not count as references. Given the track-record of this article and its contributors, there is no such thing as "overkill" for references.
All of other the issues and questions you posed above are really straw-men, obviously everyone here wants the article to improve. Even if that's not the case, it really doesn't matter (to me) as long as the content keeps moving forward and is well-substantiated. dr.ef.tymac 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the material removed is abundantly cited, and the rest is not untrue or misleadng despite being uncited. As a comparison, I will add an article from another encyclopaedia verbatim:
fact. A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs
whose obtaining makes that proposition true. Thus a fact is an actual state of affairs. Facts possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations (though facts themselves are abstract even when their constituents are not). Thus the fact that Brutus stabbed Caesar contains the objects Brutus and Caesar standing to one another (in that order) in the relation of stabbing. It is the actual obtaining of this state of affairs that makes it true that Brutus stabbed Caesar. Difficulties for this approach do, however, arise concerning the existence of negative, disjunctive, modal, and moral facts. For instance, should we say that what makes the proposition that Caesar did not stab Brutus true is the fact that he did not, or rather the non-obtaining of the state of affairs that he did?
E.J.L.
(Oxford companion to philosophy)
I have emphasised a couple of points -- the compound nature of facts, and the problem of negative (etc) facts--which have now disappeared from the article, since they were in the text removed.
1Z 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the stuff about the citations not supporting the claims was spurious, as I have shown. 1Z 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points. The trouble with the Bhaskr quote is that it supports his own critical realist ideas, rather than being applicable to facts in general - that is, that facts are only found "through theoretical paradigms and are historically specific social realities" is POV. A better approach might be to add a section on the correspondence theory, which is after all the main theory of truth that makes use of facts, including a brief critique. Banno 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
It is also a bit rough to speak of philosophical paradigms. The word is so laden with baggage as to be near useless. Banno
Finally, "conflate" seems wrong. Philosophers are at pains to distinguish fact, objectivity, belief, knowledge and truth rather than conflate them. indeed, my own plan was to add a general text that would link to these other articles. Banno
The section also needs mention the distinction between events and states of affairs, and to link to the slingshot argument. Banno 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so one person says content is supported by cites, and another person disagrees, then the wheel goes round-and-round ... but if you re-add content to the article, can you at least make sure the addition flows and has continuity with the pre-existing text? Even if you do think the material is adequately referneced, that does not mean you should just cut-n-paste "wherever it happened to be the last time it was in the article". Arbitrary re-placement of content makes the article move backward, not forward. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
relevant - definition of relevant by the Free Online Dictionary ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/relevant — which has this text (from Wordlink)
relevant adj 1: having a bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "the scientist corresponds with colleagues in order to learn about matters relevant to her own research" [ant: irrelevant] 2: having crucial relevance; "crucial to the case"; "relevant testimony" [syn: crucial]
– Newbyguesses - Talk 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This message is primarily for User:Peterdjones. Thanks for reviewing the recent major update to the "Fact in science" section. Previously, I requested that contributors take some effort to make sure the article remains cohesive and readable. (see Talk:Fact#Well-cited_versus_readable_and_cohesive).
Could you please take a moment to review your changes subsequent to my update to the "Fact in science" section? If you read closely, you will notice you re-added text that had merely been copy-edited (and not deleted) and now the article contains essentially duplicated prose in multiple places under the same section.
Also, I'd like to replace the Talk:Fact#Cassell__Citation that has been provided, as a more generalized citation (relating to more than just physicians applying a medical diagnosis) seems to be called for here.
Your contributions to the article are welcome and appreciated. Please, however, take some additional care to make sure you aren't mechanistically re-pasting content into the article every time it looks like someone has made a substantial modification to one of your prior contributions. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Could all editors discuss deletions on the talk page before making them? Thankyou. 1Z 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It is here where considerations of "fact as assertion" come into play
Is that a recognised piece of terminology?
1Z 18:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"scientific assertions of fact" is clearer, although that is what the whole section is about, so it is difficult to see why it deserves special mention 1Z 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting your mistaken edit and content duplication. Now, to answer your question, there are two subsections in the "science as fact" section. Each of which deals with the two separate meanings of the term "scientific fact":
These two meanings of 'fact' are different, and this is why there are two subsections (this is all spelled out in the article text, please do read it). dr.ef.tymac 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you maintaining that the Scholarly Inquiry only deals with facts qua Sstates-of-affairs?
So how does one make sense of: "the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;"
Why would a state-of-affairs need to become established? 1Z 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You imply it with your comment:
If you see something in the article that leads to an unambiguously ridiculous conclusion, (such as states of affairs need to be "established") you can be pretty confident that is an implication that should not be in there. Feel free to fix or clarify, as long as the article improves that's the primary goal, right?
"For example, an assertion that purports to represent scientific fact must be, according to many accounts, falsifiable and coherent".
Actually, its theories that are supposed to be falsifiable. Facts are just supposed to be true (assertions). And the accuracy of facts is supposed to be established by repeated confirmation by observers... 1Z 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.
I'm happy to take turns, you have yet to answer my question. I've answered many of yours, even helped you locate and correct your mistakes in the article. All of which I'm happy to do if it means improving the article. And now for the simple "yes no" portion of the interview:
I await your "yes or no" responses. That will help me answer you. dr.ef.tymac 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you didn't supply any references beyond wikilinks for your falsifiability claim so there is no yes or no answer to that. 1Z 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: I've taken out the "falsifiability" and "fact as assertion" items ... hopefully that will obviate the need for this detailed discussion and allow contributors to focus on whatever other issues there are. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 23:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to compliment the cooperative, even if competitive and occasionally contentious, effort to improve the article. In my opinion it presently is significantly improved from before. At least it reads like a fairly coherent presentation of the main issues, a good starting point from which to improve further as the opportunity arises. Kudos to all, because it's a bit of a tough topic to write about. ... Kenosis 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |