This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What are the opinions on putting this article up for GA review. I know there are those out there who are not happy with aspects of this article, but it seems (to me anyway) that stabilizing the content is a useful goal to shoot for. GA review might help. Also, it seems there are only so many incremental gains that can be had by "tinkering at the edges". dr.ef.tymac 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. Who did the "thorough review"? Banno 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not too bad. Not too keen on the re-inserted parenthetic comments; I'd rather not have any just as a stylistic point - I was taught that they indicate a poorly constructed paragraph. But both you and Kenosis seem to have no such foibles. Banno 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Added Globalisation tag - the material and citations are entirely US. What about other jurisdictions? Banno 06:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The following has been tagged for a few weeks. I'm removing it to talk for discussion:
Because more respect is generally accorded to facts than opinions, people may describe their opinions, based on personal experience, as "fact" even though they have not been evaluated or verified beyond the limits of individual perception. Such "facts" would be better described as beliefs, or strongly held convictions.
Yet, a conviction such as that "Magic Johnson is the greatest ever basketball player", widely held among interested observers, [1] could potentially have as much validity in discussions of basketball, as the assertion that "pain should be avoided" has: it is a widely-held view, and credible. However, the assertion that "basketballs are round", which can be rigorously examined, (that is, measurements taken, rulebooks consulted, discussion take place and so forth) would seem to be a less contentious statement within the discussion of basketball than the statement referring to a particular player's level of skill, which requires, unavoidably, a value judgement. Nevertheless, it has been argued, by Kuhn amongst others, that there still exists an opportunity for scientific concepts, even perhaps as simple as roundness, to be reliant on unspoken considerations. For instance, how are measuring devices contrived, and how and when the procedure for measuring appropriately systematized. So, it is the case that matters of fact are to be, in general, considered in relation to the particular discussion concerning a particular field of enquiry, and that widely-held views which are credible in the eyes of interested and experienced parties may then come to constitute a consensus, and may prevail in discussion, whilst still subject to deprecation by certain unconvinced parties, being in a minority.
A fact is only so as in that it is relevant to a particular discussion and particular facts are relevant in a particular discussion. Facts that are relevant in a discussion are the facts that have already been introduced to the discussion by an interested party. Facts that are relevant to a discussion may include facts, or crucial facts, [2] that are not known by any yet interested party, or have been misunderstood crucially by an interested party.
The intent here is perhaps not too bad. However the text is not referenced. Also the title is misleading, since the section is not about rhetoric, but bombast. It may be better to have a section contrasting facts with lies or even bullshit#"Bullshit" in philosophy. Banno 03:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed as well. It contrasts fact with delusion, which seems odd. There is no mention of fact in the article delusion.A delusion is a false belief, not a false fact. Indeed, there is a large, if controversial, section at belief#Belief as a psychological theory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Banno ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 June 2007
The section on pragmatism seems a bit odd, since it does not mention fact, but rather talks about truth. Banno 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is the offending section:
William James in 'Pragmatism's Conception of Truth', the sixth of a series of eight lectures he presented late in 1906 in Boston and again in early 1907 at Columbia University in New York, and which were soon published, in 1909, as Pragmatism:A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, expressed the idea that, to a pragmatist, "The possession of truth, so far from being here an end in itself, is only a preliminary means towards other vital satisfactions." (and) "The true thought is useful here because (the house) which is its object is useful to us. The practical value of true ideas is thus primarily derived from the practical importance of their objects to us." (and) "You can say of it (a truth) then either 'that it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is useful'." (and) "True is the name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the name for its completed function in experience". [1] (Pragmatism and Other Writings William James, edited by Giles Gunn, Penguin2000, page 89)
James set out the pragmatic conception of truth, on this occasion, as "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we can not." (page 88)
Peirce, in one of many formulations of the pragmatic maxim, explained truth as no more than "the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate". ( How To Make Our Ideas Clear page 38, quoted in Pragmatism and Other Writings William James, the Introduction section by Giles Gunn, page xvi)
Now my objection is that Pragmatism is predominantly a theory of truth, not of fact. There are already more mature and comprehensive accounts in the article truth, as well as in the main article on pragmatism. In addition, including this section invites the inclusion of other theories of truth - as in the article truth. I don't see the point in reproducing that material here. Banno 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I will happily admit to having a dislike of the way in which pragmatism keeps raising its ugly head - a personal prejudice, probably the result of my encounter with the troll Jon Awbrey ( talk · contribs). Again, if anyone else chooses to re-insert this material, they are welcome, and I will not remove it. As for The Slingshot, that section needs work, but then so does the Awbredised main article, Slingshot argument. I plan to re-work it, and then return to the section in the present article. To repeat my main point: if we include the section on pragmatism, we should also include other major theories of truth - and that seems the wrong way to go with this article. Banno 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
References
Was there a specific aspect of this section that constituted grounds for removal? It seemed to be both relevant to the article and representative of a fundamental precept that is not otherwise plainly explained in this article. It also seemed to meet the basic readability requirements for a general audience. dr.ef.tymac 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There is perhaps a push to insert a series of philosophical theories n to the article. Correspondence, pragmatism and verificationism at present, but these will be followed by coherentism, constructivism, redundancy and so on, until the article is a reproduction of truth. I think that would be the wrong way to go.
It strikes me that the article would rather benefit from discussing a few of the things that contrast with facts.
We already have fact and value, and fact and counterfactual. What about the obvious one, fact and falsity? Shouldn't an article on fact talk about what it means to be wrong? Can you recognise a fact if you can't recognise a falsehood? This might also provide an opportunity to contrast verification with falsification.
Then there is fact and fiction. In fiction both the author and the reader conspire in the creation of a falsehood. A chance to work critical theory and literary theory into the article.
Then Fact and Lie. In this case, the author knows and cares about the truth, and is aware that his statements are false, but seeks to hide this from the reader.
Then Fact and Bullshit, in which the author does not care about the facts, but simply seeks to advance his own position. Banno 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Banno's resistance to the mention of the theories of truth, because they are relevant to the issue of "fact" in philosophy, in turn because both "truth" and "fact" run into the epistemological problems of justification, verfication, falsification, etc. It seems to me that if the content is kept to a brief statement and a link to other articles that deal with these topics in more detail, they are appropriate for the article. I do realize that the situation can be somewhat tautological, but the fact is (pardon me for that usage) that correspondence depends on construction, and also depends on agreements of how to define and verify fact, and the fact also is that pragmatists describe how both "truth" and "fact" are in fact (pardon me again) justified, or at least agreed upon in some practical context such as, e.g., legal proceedings, and in its far more informal usage in science. So, I think it is key only to keep the description of philosophical usage brief and in reasonable perspective with the issue of justification... Kenosis 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just encountered these two words used together and went on a search to find what they mean when used together like this (assuming that the sum is greater than the parts). I found many incidences of the two words being used together but no definition of them. One snippet in the search results said something like 'one suggestive fact is better than a few bushels of theory' which seems to be suggestive of the definition....
I am just wondering if the definition of suggestive fact could belong here and if there is a philosopher who could tackle its meaning? -- carol ( talk) 08:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this section. The example and wording are of the stated source. The book and the author have received reviews in peer-reviewed journals. How is this author's wording unecyclopedic? Would an exact quote be preferable? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think mercury takes less time than any other planet to revolve arould the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.235.233 ( talk) 22:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this version. It appeared to be just a list of trivia that didn't belong in this article. If you guys want it in, that's fine, I'm not going to argue the point, but it will have to be sourced I'm sure. (and it wasn't) — Ched ( talk) 13:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
neither of the external links at the bottom of the page contribute to the article and should be deleted, right? Michaelk08 ( talk) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
At this moment, four out of the five external links seem to be collections of "fun facts" or factoids:
I'm in favor of keeping the first one, and losing the rest. Any comments? __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the wording of the gravity example in the Fact in science section from:
to:
My thinking is as follows:
- dcljr ( talk) 00:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought I would be bold and have added auto archiving. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
We've got here a good article on Fact, however the article on Opinion is, well, pathetic really. So this is just an invite for those with something to offer, especially something with references, to bowl over there and get stuck in. Scientific opinion also needs its own article. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, I find that around March '09, the intro was changed from something resembling what's contained in the citations to "A fact is a pragmatic truth... amenable to pragmatic confirmation".
(1) Where is a cite for this and if there is one, is it authoritative?
(2) There is no Wiki-link for "pragmatic truth" or "pragmatic confirmation" and the definitions of those terms is not self-evident (what *is* a pragmatic truth? what *is* pragmatic confirmation? How do pragmatic truth/confirmation differ from, well, unadorned truth/confirmation?) nor do they appear in any readily accessible form in results returned from a Google search.
I propose that the intro be reverted to something like it's pre March '09 version. Thoughts? Alfred Centauri ( talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Can facts be false ? Should this just redirect to Truth ? -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 06:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This phrase is unsourced, and unhelpful; it is at least arguable that 2+2=4 is a fact that is not known by observation. Therefore it is arguable that not all facts are known by observation. Put simply, we should not include a comment that contradicts the opinions of the likes of Kant and Hegel in the philosophy section. There are other opinions as to the facts, besides verificationism and pragmatism. Banno 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
But here is the rub: the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet is quite distinct from the fact that Jupiter has been discovered to be the largest planet, which in turn is quite distinct from the fact that a statement to that effect has been made. Your text conflates them. Banno 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) That is, the implication of your text is the incorrect one that all known facts are verified by observaton. Banno 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Or: What is the point of including that line? Banno 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to repeat: the implication of your text is that all known facts are verified by observaton. Perhaps you might try re-wording your comment to say something a bit less POV? Banno 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Each of these examples, and others, run into the same difficulty, which is fairly well described by Newbyguesses' statement that A "fact" is one thing and a "statement of fact" is a different thing, and a "known fact" is a different thing. But it's not the only way to describe the underlying "objective reality" vs. (pick one or more: belief/ opinion/ known fact/ belived to be fact/ thought to be possibly a fact/ statement of fact/ widely agreed to be fact/ fill in as may other possibilities as desired _____________). As easy as it was for Newbyguesses and me to state these issues as above, there is nevertheless a genuine problem inherent in how to define these aspects in the article. I think if we stick to what the reliable sources say about it and cite to them, describing each perspective, that the end result will be a more useful article. In Banno's defense here, one always runs into the correspondence issue when dealing with "fact" in any comprehensive way. IMO, there are ways to explain this all to readers, and I think the article already is a good part of the way towards accomplishing just that. ... Kenosis 14:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is at least arguable that 2+2=4 is a fact... Indeed arguable; but then, what isn't? Particularly sitting in a conference room getting paid for it.
If you're about to be shot by a firing squad of four, you can argue that at least three of the bullets are illusions. On the other hand, you'll probably be upset if I offer you $2000 for a speech and $2000 for expenses, but then pay you $3000 with the explanation that 2+2=3. Funny how the exigencies of daily life overrule considerations.
Twang (
talk)
19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We need to calm down and stop removing important links just so we can get to "Philosophy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Ramek ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Revision 02:55, 10 July 2011 69.210.254.104 (talk) (19,472 bytes) (Added link to Verification article.) is suspect be cause it has a significant effect on the ' Wikipedia:Get_to_Philosophy'. This link shortens all of the top ten chains by four links. Need some discussion to decide if this is valid or is gaming the game.
FYI, this page seems to go through a little edit war. It's because of the idea that if you click on every article's first link, you will eventually end up at ' philosophy' - this fact partially depends on the "Information" link of this article's first sentence. That's why people keep removing and adding back the link! Since it just started after today's comic from Xkcd (which mentions this fact) was released, I guess it will be over by tomorrow. -- Warman06 ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding recent edits to Truth that relates to this. The thread is " Users playing "Get to Philosophy" game to the detriment of Wikipedia". Comments are welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Facts are true, but we usually reserve "truth" for a higher level of discourse. "Today is Tuesday" is a fact. "All men are created equal" is a truth. Should the article say anything about this? Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There have been several good versions, but the current version seems to me very bad, so I'm going to take another stab at crafting a lead that is short and to the point. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
In ordinary conversation, the words "proposition" and "statement" mean the same thing, and I think "statement" is clearer. I don't see the harm in mentioning one source of facts, and "The World Almanac and Book of Facts" is a widely accepted example. However, I also don't want to start a revert war, so I'm not making any changes to the article at this time.
I also have a general comment. Technically, two plus two is not four, but rather the number represented by the word two plus the number represented by the word two is the number represented by the word four. But we should avoid splitting hairs. Thus, we can say "a fact is a proposition" even though we know really the fact is the idea expressed by the words of the proposition.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm ok with "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case." Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"The fact of the birds chirping in the room where I sit is neither a statement nor an idea". OTOH encyclopaedias are said to contain facts, and they don't contain cheeping birds. For some reason, no one seems to be able to grasp that the "true statement" definition and the "actual event" definition are both valid meanings of "fact", so the lede just gets kicked backwards and forwards. This has been going on for years. 1Z ( talk) 22:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
So we are currently on:
Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually exists, an event which has really occurred, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. [3] [4] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. Philosophers and scientists are interested in facts because of their relation to truth.
1Z ( talk) 16:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
As it stands now, there are no links to more fundamental principals which was always the case prior to the current edit war.
From the OED:
Fact: "Something that has *really* occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it."
Really: "In reality; in a real manner. Also: in fact, actually."
Something's "reality" is foundational to its being a fact. If there is a well thought out entry for "Reality" it only makes sense to follow though to it. -- Xefer ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite what the edit summary says, the OED wording hasn't been restored. The current wording includes the peculiar phrase "corresponding to experience", which seem like a portmanteau of "given by experience" and "corresponding to reality". It also omits the (I think useful) contrasts with fiction, and for that matter with value. 1Z ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
References
I have to object strenuously to not one, but two, references to dictionaries in the opening sentence.
Dictionaries are generally not good sources for encyclopedia articles. They are tertiary sources, not secondary, and we want mostly secondary with occasional primary mixed in. Tertiary sources are sometimes just barely better than nothing at all, but they should be removed as soon as relevant secondary sources are found.
Moreover, our function is not that of a dictionary; our main purpose in the "definition" part of the lead is not to define the word, but rather to introduce the subject of the article. I am still unclear on what the subject of the article actually is; I would like that clarified. In the mean time, dictionary refs don't serve that function. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
At this writing, the lead sentence says
First of all, facts don't refer to anything. The term "facts" might refer to such things. So a minimal rewriting would be to replace "Facts" with "the term facts".
But that's really weak. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it's supposed to tell us about the subject matter, not about the words used to describe it. So we could replace it instead with "Facts are truths...".
However now we're getting full-on into the relationship between fact and truth, which I'll treat below.
As for the second sentence, what is "provable concept" supposed to mean? You don't prove concepts; you prove assertions. Heat, for example, is a scientific concept. How would you attempt to prove heat? Can heat be a fact? Of course not. "Provable concept" has to go; I'm just not sure what to replace it with. --
Trovatore (
talk)
19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is far more accurate to say that facts are "verified information" than it is to say they are "truths." Truth, as indicated in the article in the link deal in terms of "objective reality," where as facts are beliefs about reality that typically have been substantiated to the point that there is little disagreement about them. It's my belief that this opening sentence was first edited for a purpose related to the "get to philosophy" link structure, and not to increase accuracy. I agree with the decision to semi-protect the article to stop this nonsense. However, at this point the article is semi-protected in a less accurate configuration, and should be reverted to "verified information" and protected in that form. Nhorning ( talk) 07:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think that quite captures what me mean by "fact". The verification of a fact is different from the fact itself. It seems to me that a "fact" must, in every case, have two properties. First it is a statement. That is, a chair cannot be a fact. And it is distinguished from other statements by a correspondence with reality. I'm going to be bold, and edit accordingly.
I don't really mind what the opening sentence says exactly, but I took out the World Almanac link and went back to an old version. Meesher ( talk) 07:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a persistent tendency to wrap a wikilink around "verifiability" in the lead. Since [[verifiability]] redirects to the computer topic of Formal verification, it has no business being linked in the lead of this article. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
peterdjones reverted my version "per consensus". What consensus? I certainly haven't seen one here. There have been several reasonably good versions but the current version is repetitious and awkward. As for the dictionary definition, certainly dictionaries are often used to support definitions in Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia doesn't use words to mean what they mean in the dictionary. If my version is unacceptable, let's go back to an earlier version. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
References to dictionaries are most useful when people disagree about what words mean. If, for example, one group of editors argues that "liberal" means favoring freedom and equality, and another group of editors argues that "liberal" means people who hate America, a dictionary is really the only way to settle the issue. What we have here, however, is not a disagreement about the meaning of the word, but a disagreement about felicitous wording for the lead, so I should have have let myself get distracted by the side issue of the usefulness of dictionaries. The question here is not so much what we say as how we say it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make verifiability (at the beginning of the page) a link
AsherPicklebutt ( talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
facts give information about stuff you need for school.It helps to know about(cats,dogs,and more)just look it up and u will know what it means! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.3.103 ( talk) 22:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there some context I'm missing for the bizarre edit war over whether the lede should wikilink the word "proven" to " Proof (truth)"? It's been new accounts or IPs removing it over the past couple of days, but User:9E2 gave the bizarre edit summary (addressing an apparently unrelated vandal) of "Nice try, 222.126.241.62. By moving the link to ”proof (truth)”, “experience” becomes the first real link and the “game” goes on. Subsequent edits removed the (relevant) link to “proof (truth)” completely."
What's going on? -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
What are the opinions on putting this article up for GA review. I know there are those out there who are not happy with aspects of this article, but it seems (to me anyway) that stabilizing the content is a useful goal to shoot for. GA review might help. Also, it seems there are only so many incremental gains that can be had by "tinkering at the edges". dr.ef.tymac 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. Who did the "thorough review"? Banno 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not too bad. Not too keen on the re-inserted parenthetic comments; I'd rather not have any just as a stylistic point - I was taught that they indicate a poorly constructed paragraph. But both you and Kenosis seem to have no such foibles. Banno 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Added Globalisation tag - the material and citations are entirely US. What about other jurisdictions? Banno 06:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The following has been tagged for a few weeks. I'm removing it to talk for discussion:
Because more respect is generally accorded to facts than opinions, people may describe their opinions, based on personal experience, as "fact" even though they have not been evaluated or verified beyond the limits of individual perception. Such "facts" would be better described as beliefs, or strongly held convictions.
Yet, a conviction such as that "Magic Johnson is the greatest ever basketball player", widely held among interested observers, [1] could potentially have as much validity in discussions of basketball, as the assertion that "pain should be avoided" has: it is a widely-held view, and credible. However, the assertion that "basketballs are round", which can be rigorously examined, (that is, measurements taken, rulebooks consulted, discussion take place and so forth) would seem to be a less contentious statement within the discussion of basketball than the statement referring to a particular player's level of skill, which requires, unavoidably, a value judgement. Nevertheless, it has been argued, by Kuhn amongst others, that there still exists an opportunity for scientific concepts, even perhaps as simple as roundness, to be reliant on unspoken considerations. For instance, how are measuring devices contrived, and how and when the procedure for measuring appropriately systematized. So, it is the case that matters of fact are to be, in general, considered in relation to the particular discussion concerning a particular field of enquiry, and that widely-held views which are credible in the eyes of interested and experienced parties may then come to constitute a consensus, and may prevail in discussion, whilst still subject to deprecation by certain unconvinced parties, being in a minority.
A fact is only so as in that it is relevant to a particular discussion and particular facts are relevant in a particular discussion. Facts that are relevant in a discussion are the facts that have already been introduced to the discussion by an interested party. Facts that are relevant to a discussion may include facts, or crucial facts, [2] that are not known by any yet interested party, or have been misunderstood crucially by an interested party.
The intent here is perhaps not too bad. However the text is not referenced. Also the title is misleading, since the section is not about rhetoric, but bombast. It may be better to have a section contrasting facts with lies or even bullshit#"Bullshit" in philosophy. Banno 03:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed as well. It contrasts fact with delusion, which seems odd. There is no mention of fact in the article delusion.A delusion is a false belief, not a false fact. Indeed, there is a large, if controversial, section at belief#Belief as a psychological theory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Banno ( talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 June 2007
The section on pragmatism seems a bit odd, since it does not mention fact, but rather talks about truth. Banno 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is the offending section:
William James in 'Pragmatism's Conception of Truth', the sixth of a series of eight lectures he presented late in 1906 in Boston and again in early 1907 at Columbia University in New York, and which were soon published, in 1909, as Pragmatism:A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, expressed the idea that, to a pragmatist, "The possession of truth, so far from being here an end in itself, is only a preliminary means towards other vital satisfactions." (and) "The true thought is useful here because (the house) which is its object is useful to us. The practical value of true ideas is thus primarily derived from the practical importance of their objects to us." (and) "You can say of it (a truth) then either 'that it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is useful'." (and) "True is the name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the name for its completed function in experience". [1] (Pragmatism and Other Writings William James, edited by Giles Gunn, Penguin2000, page 89)
James set out the pragmatic conception of truth, on this occasion, as "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we can not." (page 88)
Peirce, in one of many formulations of the pragmatic maxim, explained truth as no more than "the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate". ( How To Make Our Ideas Clear page 38, quoted in Pragmatism and Other Writings William James, the Introduction section by Giles Gunn, page xvi)
Now my objection is that Pragmatism is predominantly a theory of truth, not of fact. There are already more mature and comprehensive accounts in the article truth, as well as in the main article on pragmatism. In addition, including this section invites the inclusion of other theories of truth - as in the article truth. I don't see the point in reproducing that material here. Banno 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I will happily admit to having a dislike of the way in which pragmatism keeps raising its ugly head - a personal prejudice, probably the result of my encounter with the troll Jon Awbrey ( talk · contribs). Again, if anyone else chooses to re-insert this material, they are welcome, and I will not remove it. As for The Slingshot, that section needs work, but then so does the Awbredised main article, Slingshot argument. I plan to re-work it, and then return to the section in the present article. To repeat my main point: if we include the section on pragmatism, we should also include other major theories of truth - and that seems the wrong way to go with this article. Banno 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
References
Was there a specific aspect of this section that constituted grounds for removal? It seemed to be both relevant to the article and representative of a fundamental precept that is not otherwise plainly explained in this article. It also seemed to meet the basic readability requirements for a general audience. dr.ef.tymac 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
There is perhaps a push to insert a series of philosophical theories n to the article. Correspondence, pragmatism and verificationism at present, but these will be followed by coherentism, constructivism, redundancy and so on, until the article is a reproduction of truth. I think that would be the wrong way to go.
It strikes me that the article would rather benefit from discussing a few of the things that contrast with facts.
We already have fact and value, and fact and counterfactual. What about the obvious one, fact and falsity? Shouldn't an article on fact talk about what it means to be wrong? Can you recognise a fact if you can't recognise a falsehood? This might also provide an opportunity to contrast verification with falsification.
Then there is fact and fiction. In fiction both the author and the reader conspire in the creation of a falsehood. A chance to work critical theory and literary theory into the article.
Then Fact and Lie. In this case, the author knows and cares about the truth, and is aware that his statements are false, but seeks to hide this from the reader.
Then Fact and Bullshit, in which the author does not care about the facts, but simply seeks to advance his own position. Banno 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Banno's resistance to the mention of the theories of truth, because they are relevant to the issue of "fact" in philosophy, in turn because both "truth" and "fact" run into the epistemological problems of justification, verfication, falsification, etc. It seems to me that if the content is kept to a brief statement and a link to other articles that deal with these topics in more detail, they are appropriate for the article. I do realize that the situation can be somewhat tautological, but the fact is (pardon me for that usage) that correspondence depends on construction, and also depends on agreements of how to define and verify fact, and the fact also is that pragmatists describe how both "truth" and "fact" are in fact (pardon me again) justified, or at least agreed upon in some practical context such as, e.g., legal proceedings, and in its far more informal usage in science. So, I think it is key only to keep the description of philosophical usage brief and in reasonable perspective with the issue of justification... Kenosis 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just encountered these two words used together and went on a search to find what they mean when used together like this (assuming that the sum is greater than the parts). I found many incidences of the two words being used together but no definition of them. One snippet in the search results said something like 'one suggestive fact is better than a few bushels of theory' which seems to be suggestive of the definition....
I am just wondering if the definition of suggestive fact could belong here and if there is a philosopher who could tackle its meaning? -- carol ( talk) 08:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this section. The example and wording are of the stated source. The book and the author have received reviews in peer-reviewed journals. How is this author's wording unecyclopedic? Would an exact quote be preferable? -- Firefly322 ( talk) 06:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think mercury takes less time than any other planet to revolve arould the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.235.233 ( talk) 22:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I reverted this version. It appeared to be just a list of trivia that didn't belong in this article. If you guys want it in, that's fine, I'm not going to argue the point, but it will have to be sourced I'm sure. (and it wasn't) — Ched ( talk) 13:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
neither of the external links at the bottom of the page contribute to the article and should be deleted, right? Michaelk08 ( talk) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
At this moment, four out of the five external links seem to be collections of "fun facts" or factoids:
I'm in favor of keeping the first one, and losing the rest. Any comments? __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 14:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the wording of the gravity example in the Fact in science section from:
to:
My thinking is as follows:
- dcljr ( talk) 00:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought I would be bold and have added auto archiving. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
We've got here a good article on Fact, however the article on Opinion is, well, pathetic really. So this is just an invite for those with something to offer, especially something with references, to bowl over there and get stuck in. Scientific opinion also needs its own article. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, I find that around March '09, the intro was changed from something resembling what's contained in the citations to "A fact is a pragmatic truth... amenable to pragmatic confirmation".
(1) Where is a cite for this and if there is one, is it authoritative?
(2) There is no Wiki-link for "pragmatic truth" or "pragmatic confirmation" and the definitions of those terms is not self-evident (what *is* a pragmatic truth? what *is* pragmatic confirmation? How do pragmatic truth/confirmation differ from, well, unadorned truth/confirmation?) nor do they appear in any readily accessible form in results returned from a Google search.
I propose that the intro be reverted to something like it's pre March '09 version. Thoughts? Alfred Centauri ( talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Can facts be false ? Should this just redirect to Truth ? -- 195.137.93.171 ( talk) 06:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This phrase is unsourced, and unhelpful; it is at least arguable that 2+2=4 is a fact that is not known by observation. Therefore it is arguable that not all facts are known by observation. Put simply, we should not include a comment that contradicts the opinions of the likes of Kant and Hegel in the philosophy section. There are other opinions as to the facts, besides verificationism and pragmatism. Banno 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
But here is the rub: the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet is quite distinct from the fact that Jupiter has been discovered to be the largest planet, which in turn is quite distinct from the fact that a statement to that effect has been made. Your text conflates them. Banno 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) That is, the implication of your text is the incorrect one that all known facts are verified by observaton. Banno 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Or: What is the point of including that line? Banno 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to repeat: the implication of your text is that all known facts are verified by observaton. Perhaps you might try re-wording your comment to say something a bit less POV? Banno 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Each of these examples, and others, run into the same difficulty, which is fairly well described by Newbyguesses' statement that A "fact" is one thing and a "statement of fact" is a different thing, and a "known fact" is a different thing. But it's not the only way to describe the underlying "objective reality" vs. (pick one or more: belief/ opinion/ known fact/ belived to be fact/ thought to be possibly a fact/ statement of fact/ widely agreed to be fact/ fill in as may other possibilities as desired _____________). As easy as it was for Newbyguesses and me to state these issues as above, there is nevertheless a genuine problem inherent in how to define these aspects in the article. I think if we stick to what the reliable sources say about it and cite to them, describing each perspective, that the end result will be a more useful article. In Banno's defense here, one always runs into the correspondence issue when dealing with "fact" in any comprehensive way. IMO, there are ways to explain this all to readers, and I think the article already is a good part of the way towards accomplishing just that. ... Kenosis 14:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It is at least arguable that 2+2=4 is a fact... Indeed arguable; but then, what isn't? Particularly sitting in a conference room getting paid for it.
If you're about to be shot by a firing squad of four, you can argue that at least three of the bullets are illusions. On the other hand, you'll probably be upset if I offer you $2000 for a speech and $2000 for expenses, but then pay you $3000 with the explanation that 2+2=3. Funny how the exigencies of daily life overrule considerations.
Twang (
talk)
19:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We need to calm down and stop removing important links just so we can get to "Philosophy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Ramek ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Revision 02:55, 10 July 2011 69.210.254.104 (talk) (19,472 bytes) (Added link to Verification article.) is suspect be cause it has a significant effect on the ' Wikipedia:Get_to_Philosophy'. This link shortens all of the top ten chains by four links. Need some discussion to decide if this is valid or is gaming the game.
FYI, this page seems to go through a little edit war. It's because of the idea that if you click on every article's first link, you will eventually end up at ' philosophy' - this fact partially depends on the "Information" link of this article's first sentence. That's why people keep removing and adding back the link! Since it just started after today's comic from Xkcd (which mentions this fact) was released, I guess it will be over by tomorrow. -- Warman06 ( talk) 07:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding recent edits to Truth that relates to this. The thread is " Users playing "Get to Philosophy" game to the detriment of Wikipedia". Comments are welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Facts are true, but we usually reserve "truth" for a higher level of discourse. "Today is Tuesday" is a fact. "All men are created equal" is a truth. Should the article say anything about this? Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There have been several good versions, but the current version seems to me very bad, so I'm going to take another stab at crafting a lead that is short and to the point. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
In ordinary conversation, the words "proposition" and "statement" mean the same thing, and I think "statement" is clearer. I don't see the harm in mentioning one source of facts, and "The World Almanac and Book of Facts" is a widely accepted example. However, I also don't want to start a revert war, so I'm not making any changes to the article at this time.
I also have a general comment. Technically, two plus two is not four, but rather the number represented by the word two plus the number represented by the word two is the number represented by the word four. But we should avoid splitting hairs. Thus, we can say "a fact is a proposition" even though we know really the fact is the idea expressed by the words of the proposition.
Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. Rick Norwood ( talk) 15:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm ok with "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case." Rick Norwood ( talk) 20:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
"The fact of the birds chirping in the room where I sit is neither a statement nor an idea". OTOH encyclopaedias are said to contain facts, and they don't contain cheeping birds. For some reason, no one seems to be able to grasp that the "true statement" definition and the "actual event" definition are both valid meanings of "fact", so the lede just gets kicked backwards and forwards. This has been going on for years. 1Z ( talk) 22:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
So we are currently on:
Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually exists, an event which has really occurred, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. [3] [4] There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. Philosophers and scientists are interested in facts because of their relation to truth.
1Z ( talk) 16:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
As it stands now, there are no links to more fundamental principals which was always the case prior to the current edit war.
From the OED:
Fact: "Something that has *really* occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it."
Really: "In reality; in a real manner. Also: in fact, actually."
Something's "reality" is foundational to its being a fact. If there is a well thought out entry for "Reality" it only makes sense to follow though to it. -- Xefer ( talk) 17:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Despite what the edit summary says, the OED wording hasn't been restored. The current wording includes the peculiar phrase "corresponding to experience", which seem like a portmanteau of "given by experience" and "corresponding to reality". It also omits the (I think useful) contrasts with fiction, and for that matter with value. 1Z ( talk) 12:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
References
I have to object strenuously to not one, but two, references to dictionaries in the opening sentence.
Dictionaries are generally not good sources for encyclopedia articles. They are tertiary sources, not secondary, and we want mostly secondary with occasional primary mixed in. Tertiary sources are sometimes just barely better than nothing at all, but they should be removed as soon as relevant secondary sources are found.
Moreover, our function is not that of a dictionary; our main purpose in the "definition" part of the lead is not to define the word, but rather to introduce the subject of the article. I am still unclear on what the subject of the article actually is; I would like that clarified. In the mean time, dictionary refs don't serve that function. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
At this writing, the lead sentence says
First of all, facts don't refer to anything. The term "facts" might refer to such things. So a minimal rewriting would be to replace "Facts" with "the term facts".
But that's really weak. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it's supposed to tell us about the subject matter, not about the words used to describe it. So we could replace it instead with "Facts are truths...".
However now we're getting full-on into the relationship between fact and truth, which I'll treat below.
As for the second sentence, what is "provable concept" supposed to mean? You don't prove concepts; you prove assertions. Heat, for example, is a scientific concept. How would you attempt to prove heat? Can heat be a fact? Of course not. "Provable concept" has to go; I'm just not sure what to replace it with. --
Trovatore (
talk)
19:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is far more accurate to say that facts are "verified information" than it is to say they are "truths." Truth, as indicated in the article in the link deal in terms of "objective reality," where as facts are beliefs about reality that typically have been substantiated to the point that there is little disagreement about them. It's my belief that this opening sentence was first edited for a purpose related to the "get to philosophy" link structure, and not to increase accuracy. I agree with the decision to semi-protect the article to stop this nonsense. However, at this point the article is semi-protected in a less accurate configuration, and should be reverted to "verified information" and protected in that form. Nhorning ( talk) 07:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think that quite captures what me mean by "fact". The verification of a fact is different from the fact itself. It seems to me that a "fact" must, in every case, have two properties. First it is a statement. That is, a chair cannot be a fact. And it is distinguished from other statements by a correspondence with reality. I'm going to be bold, and edit accordingly.
I don't really mind what the opening sentence says exactly, but I took out the World Almanac link and went back to an old version. Meesher ( talk) 07:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a persistent tendency to wrap a wikilink around "verifiability" in the lead. Since [[verifiability]] redirects to the computer topic of Formal verification, it has no business being linked in the lead of this article. __ Just plain Bill ( talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
peterdjones reverted my version "per consensus". What consensus? I certainly haven't seen one here. There have been several reasonably good versions but the current version is repetitious and awkward. As for the dictionary definition, certainly dictionaries are often used to support definitions in Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia doesn't use words to mean what they mean in the dictionary. If my version is unacceptable, let's go back to an earlier version. Rick Norwood ( talk) 00:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
References to dictionaries are most useful when people disagree about what words mean. If, for example, one group of editors argues that "liberal" means favoring freedom and equality, and another group of editors argues that "liberal" means people who hate America, a dictionary is really the only way to settle the issue. What we have here, however, is not a disagreement about the meaning of the word, but a disagreement about felicitous wording for the lead, so I should have have let myself get distracted by the side issue of the usefulness of dictionaries. The question here is not so much what we say as how we say it. Rick Norwood ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make verifiability (at the beginning of the page) a link
AsherPicklebutt ( talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
facts give information about stuff you need for school.It helps to know about(cats,dogs,and more)just look it up and u will know what it means! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.3.103 ( talk) 22:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there some context I'm missing for the bizarre edit war over whether the lede should wikilink the word "proven" to " Proof (truth)"? It's been new accounts or IPs removing it over the past couple of days, but User:9E2 gave the bizarre edit summary (addressing an apparently unrelated vandal) of "Nice try, 222.126.241.62. By moving the link to ”proof (truth)”, “experience” becomes the first real link and the “game” goes on. Subsequent edits removed the (relevant) link to “proof (truth)” completely."
What's going on? -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)