Talk:Fact/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Initial definition

AFAIC, the correct definition is a follows:

A fact is something that is the case. It is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.

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)

Apparently you found fault with this revision, based on its definition constituting naive relativism. Although I am not quite sure how you operationally define that term, nor why such a definition is necessarily inconsistent with the subject matter of this article, I have withdrawn the revision. My request is this, could you please provide a cite to a reliable source that presents a definition that is the same or substantially similar to "A fact is something that is the case."?

The current introduction seems to have very low information content for a lead section in a Wikipedia article, and it would seem appropriate to include (the apparently subtle) refinements like the one you appear to be making further in the body of the article itself. Any clarification or correction is of course welcome. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:25, 12 April 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)

• The objective of an encyclopedic article should be to provide accurate understandable information to a general reader and, as such, should avoid the language of the erudite specialist.The prior opening statement " A fact is something which is the case" is meaningless to the general reader. This User changed the opening statement to " A fact is something which can be verified from rigorous disciplined records or by repeatable observation", and added " In common useage a 'fact' is a perception derived from the individual's beliefs".I suggest this is a more informative opening statement, but one which may be improved upon without use of obscure language. It also seems to me that the part of the opening statement, which follows immediately after my change, is not necessary, may be confusing to the general reader and should thus be deleted. The main body of the Article appears to be quite good in it's discussion of interpretations. I am not a dogmatist so any criticism is welcomedGeoffrey Wickham 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedantry

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)

I agree. A fact is, by definition, true; if it is not true, it is not a fact. A factual claim or a statement of fact is a claim or statement that purports to be true, not a claim or statement that can be proven or disproven. "A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct" is a good definition, but if this statement can be disproven and shown to be incorrect, then it is a mistake, an error, a falsehood, a lie, or an untruth; not an oxymoronic "false fact". JHCC [[User talk:JHCC|(talk)]] 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard about "false facts" in school work since elementary school, but even if such discussions were based on incorrect information or are otherwise irrelevant, "false fact" is still a legal term used in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere?). Ardric47 05:47, 26 February 2006 (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:

In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

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)

This is a misconception of the term "experiment" on your part. We can very much do experiments in the here and now: We can make further excavations and see if they confirm or falsify the hypotheses. Any good hypothesis as a predictive character related to future findings. Whether these are through "lab experiments" or achaeological digging isn't really relevant. --OliverH 09:10, 16 July 2006 (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:

• In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

This needs serious rewriting. JHCC (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Tagging this as OR and disputed

The article seems to contain a good deal of naive relativism:

Under no circumstance can an idea or fact be considered to be wholly and absolutely true at all times and under any given set of conditions and circumstances. It is the belief that facts have this ability to be absolutely true that allows people to kill and hurt other people.

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]

Ironic

It is rather funny that the article on fact has a "factual" dispute. --Jay(Reply) 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought, too. Really this is such a notable article that we should be able to get it right. 4.242.147.141 22:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits

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)

Fact and Perception

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)

Fact vs Theory

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)

Fact is nothing more than a matter of opinion that the majority agree upon. (for example Pluto was a planet, now it's just a dwarf planet, in five years it will be nothing more than a golf ball floating in space) 75.15.247.228 19:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Fact

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)

Removed tag. Please don't add tags simply to make a point (see WP:POINT). --TeaDrinker 22:11, 25 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)

Facts in Philosophy

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)

"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 wasn't proposing to explain correspondence theory without metaphysics.

"I am not sure that a true belief is a state of affair"

I am not saying it is. My point was that these are two different definiitons.

"One has to be clear about the different supposed meanings, but only one of them is true"

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)

• The comments in Discussion make interesting reading, and there is little in the comments with which I would disagree. It seems to me, an engineer not a philosopher or linguist, that the greatest cause of concern is the opening statement (attempt at definition) of the article.

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)

When someone says "that's a fact" what they mean is that it isn't just their opinion. It is not that the word "fact" has acquired a new meaning, the opposite of the old one, the issue is that the claim is false -- it is just their opinion.

Readers who do not understand the philosophical definition can use the wikilinks. 1Z 11:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

work on the article introduction

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)

I've had a go at the first two sentences. The intent should be clear that the article has room to permit any of various definitions (either well-defined, analytically rigorous or otherwise) as long as they can be reasonably substantiated.

Items that are not yet in this article, but come to mind immediately :

• legal definition of "fact" as an element of Pleadings;
• legal definition of "fact" as determinations of the finder of fact based on admissible evidence in a trial or hearing;
• personal assertions and non-analytic conclusions that are either wholly or partially based on observation combined with opinion, such as: "It's a fact that women drivers are worse than men." This type was mentioned by User:Geoffrey Wickham and seems to merit inclusion as a common (mis)application.
• any depiction or re-telling of an event from personal episodic memory, in common parlance: "Just the facts ma'am.".

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)

Deciding to be BOLD, I have moved the statement "In Philosophy..." from the opening definition to underneath the subheading ==Fact in Philosophy== which makes the articles more in accord with tag "....formal tone expected of an encyclopedic article". This allows the differing 'discipline based' definitions to be presented in an understandable way. I support the proposals of User:Dreftymac (above) that further subsections such as 'Fact in Law'& "Fact in Common Incorrect Useage" (my words) should be developed.Geoffrey Wickham 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This user supports the views expressed by other users immediately above for improving this article.

I welcome the opportunity to collaborate fruitfully with this article provided.

Article has been improved by recent lede changes (imho).

A fact is only so as in that it is relevant to a particular discussion. (or) Particular facts are relevant in a particular discussion; that is how I understand it.

• [Fact] in Law, evidence and so forth will be so huge a topic that it is under Philosophy of Law, and available by the Disambiguation pages also.

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)

The updates are excellent. I have a couple of (clarifying?) quibbles.

existence- a thought exists?

a thought about a fictional character, (Bugs Bunny) exists?

Is it a "fact" that Bugs bunny said - Whats up, doc?

(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)

Ok. You raise good questions here; counterfactuals are not covered here at all yet, as far as I can tell, and seems to call for inclusion. The other issue you raise seems at least to be hinted at in the last sentence of the "Philosophy" subsection, but still could be a bit clearer. dr.ef.tymac 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Quib 1 answered,// Qyib 2) a material fact, yet unknown to any interested party, may be crucial. If the state of affairs is considered as momentarily changing, then a decision is instantaneously made, and so this quib2 is answered. But, during the interval when facts are being gathered pending a decision, then those unknown facts may be crucial (material). Not wanting to sound like DR)/:) &dashedNewbyguesses 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fact in common usage

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)

Fact in investigations

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.

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)

Cassell Citation

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)

recent article overhaul

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:

• 1) substantial addition of references;
• 2) add references to previously unreferenced "fact in law" section;
• 3) re-removed "investigations" section pursuant to recent overhaul;
• 4) re-removed duplicate "fact in philosophy" section;
• 5) re-add Unreferencedsection to section with few internal WP links;
• 6) add "stub section" to section with serveral internal WP links;
• 7) re-add introduction with references.

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)

Statements

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)

Banno, you took this out, but I am putting it back in because your "concise" wording omits the situation where "fact" is stipulated, but does not necessarily coincide with "that which is the case". You are applying the "philosophical" definition to the entire article. Either the entire article should be Fact (philosophy), or the introduction should be consistent with the content of the entire article.

The point you are making here is not new, nor corrective of a misunderstanding. You took out an important clarification that keeps the article from contradicting itself. If you want to change "statement" to "stipulation" or something else, that's fine, but please do not re-introduce internal inconsistencies in the content of the article. dr.ef.tymac 14:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Introduction section

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)

Intro: It's an overview. If the word "Introduction" seems redundant, no problem, change it to something else.

Purpose: It is a sensible editorial strategy to delineate fundamental concepts in clear terms so that: 1) the content remains accessible to a general audience; 2) basic principles are expressed clearly, thus preventing confusion from unnecessarily abstruse and turgid copy; and 3) other contributors are exposed to essential concepts in a normalized framework, obviating unclear writing and redundancies that result from different writers who use "the same words to mean different things".

Even if differences in definition do exist, they can be reconciled by comparison to the basic framework of enumerated concepts, so that all readers and contributors have a "baseline" of comparison against which to evaluate their own understanding.

This article topic is subject to different perspectives. There needs to be some kind of pragmatic foundation to help deal with this.

WP:SYN: As far as your ref to WP:SYN, the policy states in relevant part:

   analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic 
   before it can be published in Wikipedia. (emphasis in original)

If you can indicate a reference with analysis that does not relate to the specific topic of this article ("fact") then please do, I will be happy to support all efforts to correct such a deficiency. As it stands now, however, your implication of a proscription based on WP policy seems clearly unsubstantiated. Moreover, even if such a reference can be shown, that can be easily corrected by replacing the reference with another, that would not justify wholesale deletion. None of the points enumerated herein relate to a documented dispute or controversy, as is the case in the example under WP:SYN.

Suggestion: I support your suggestion to expand, as long as the outcome is consistent with the goals of accessibility and clarity. Outright removal, however, seems inappropriate at best. This is especially true given that a tenable rationale for removal has yet to be forwarded, and multiple contributors have already indicated that the clarification is useful. dr.ef.tymac 14:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The section is a synthesis, in that no other single source presents the list presented here. But apart from that, the section is very unclear. take:

no other single source presents the list presented here

You have yet to explain why this is against WP policy. Please show me where it states "all content in a list of enumerated items must appear in a single source". dr.ef.tymac 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I begin to remember why I stopped editing the Wiki. Banno

No one's asking you to leave WP, just to substantiate your (very generalized) assertions regarding WP policy. What could be more reasonable? So far, your reliance on WP:SYN seems quite shaky. I've even demonstrated why I think so in specific terms. Is it so bad to ask you to be specific as well? dr.ef.tymac 00:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood, doubtless because of my poor expression. But here is the point again: this section comes perilously close to a synthesis of published material, in that no other single source presents the list represented here as the "basic concepts in the analysis and application of fact". WP:SYN states: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. The section certainly amalgamates a range of such sources. The only reason it is not a clear example of synthesis is that it is entirely unclear what exactly is being advanced. So let's see if we can out the meaning of the various paragraphs... Banno 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood, doubtless because of my poor expression.

Banno, you do no one a service by:

• failing to address specific questions and issues posed to you; and
• repeating yourself instead of clarifying.

Do you notice how you did not address the specific issues I raised when citing and interpreting WP:SYN above?

Do you notice how you've repeated your "perilously close" formulation yet again (whatever that means), and then undermined your assertion (yet again) by stating you don't even understand what's being "advanced"!? ... even though this is the critical element of even a prima facie showing of WP:SYN? Might I suggest you'd do a lot to enhance your credibility by not blatantly contradicting yourself?

Do you notice how you changed "some basic concepts" ... into "the basic concepts"? Do you notice how you're disputing wording that is not even in the article?

Do you notice that the entire article is an amalgamation of concepts and principles from different sources and disicplines? Do you notice that the entire article relates to different perspectives on the topic? Do you notice that the entire article "advances the position" that all these disparate sources and principles are relevant to the topic of "fact"? Is the entire article a violation of WP:SYN because "no other single source presents the list represented here"?? ... and what policy did you get that wording from?

Do you notice how you've found fault with several aspects of the article, despite that more than zero of your "corrections" were actually introducing new errors instead of resolving them, and despite the fact that more than zero participants have questioned the value of your contributions, and the productivity of your approach?

Do you notice how numerous cites have been added to the article to address deficiencies and substantiate the text, and how you've repeatedly done nothing but find fault, all the while providing (apparently) *zero* citations of your own to help move the content forward, or to substantiate your own viewpoints? (zero, other than [what seems to be] an overreaching mis-application of WP:SYN)?

How is any of this actually going to help move this article and discussion forward? dr.ef.tymac 04:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

discussion: matters of fact ordinarily have application to a particular discussion, hypothesis, issue or dispute involving one or more parties

It sounds very impressive. Does it really say anything more than that facts can be stated? I don't think so. But then, I'm not at all sure what it doessay.

or:

I'm not at all sure what it does say

It's an overview to set a foundation of basic terminology. Very simple. Not pedantic, not pretentious, not abstruse, no flying pink pigs. Go see the "Repeat" below.

Do you really believe the clause is simple? Have you read it? Does it mean "Facts can be stated"? Banno 00:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts are discussed. Discussions occur in different contexts. Some of those contexts have formalized names. What seems to be the crisis? Not only have I read it, others have as well. You seem to be the first to express any kind of distress whatsoever. dr.ef.tymac 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

existence: any assertion regarding fact is expected to coincide with a known or knowable circumstance or "state of affairs" contained in the universe;

>

What does this actually mean? It is not a difficult thing to come up with an "assertion regarding facts" that does not "coincide with a known or knowable circumstance or 'state of affairs' contained in the universe" - "facts are all pink pigs", for example (not to mention that, for example, 2=2=4 might be considered by some to be a fact that is not "contained in the universe"). The citation provided does not help here. If it is simply attempting to say that facts must be about real things, then why the obscure wording?

It's an overview to set a foundation of basic terminology. Very simple. Not pedantic, not pretentious, not abstruse, no flying pink pigs. Go see the "Repeat" below.

Each item in the list is subject to this sort of attack. I'm well aware that the article has been worked on by multiple authors. It seems to me that in this case, the result is a wordy hotchpotch. Perhaps it needs someone from outside the fray to see this.

What sort of "attack"? You've suggested that: 1) some of the wording is subject to counter-example, and; 2) you don't quite understand it. Item 1) can be addressed quite easily. Item 2) seems to be an expression of your personal struggles. Is that grounds for removal of content that has already undergone review? I don't think so. dr.ef.tymac 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be moved to talk for re-consideration. Banno 22:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeat: This article topic is subject to different perspectives. There needs to be some kind of pragmatic foundation to help deal with this. Multiple contributors have had a say and every single point you have raised here still does not forward a tenable rationale for deletion (as opposed to clarification). dr.ef.tymac 23:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've updated the wording on "existence" slightly to clarify, I've also added another cite. The questions you posed are directly treated in the references. dr.ef.tymac 23:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Facts in Philosophy

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, or as a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal decision procedure.

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 word "fact" can and is used to stand for both a true statement and the state-of-affairs reported by a true statement. The article should reflect both usages and not attempt to adjudicate between them. 1Z 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are in error here. A true statement may state a fact, but the fact is the state of affairs, not the statement. Perhaps this is due to reliance on WordNet; you will not find this confusion in the OED, for example. Note also that the citation does not support the assertion - the wordnet entry does not say that facts may be "demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal Decision procedure". Without that clause, the assertion in the article looses any pretence of philosophical import. Banno 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

see: define:fact

1Z 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are just arbitrarily claiming that the OED is right ad everything else is wrong. A range of references will give a range of opinion. 1Z 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

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)

The following, in accordance with the talkpage guidelines, is not a discussion of the subject "fact", rather an attempt to discover a suitable formation of the topic as to generate pertinent headings and subheadings suitable for this article "fact". If facts are considered as entities, in some way, actualities that have existence, then we have an undifferentiated mass of hopefully reliable observations - the sun is big, water is wet, eggs are brittle, today is hot etcetera. However, if fact is characterised as entities, in some way relevant to a particular discussion, then we may structure: facts relevant in the study of philosophy, facts relevant to the discussion of law, .. to studying science... and so on. Or, we could consider; the conclusions that philosophers have come to considering the gathering and thinking about fact, the facts that have been discovered in science, the facts that have been presented as evidence in Law, the statutes of Law... Is it the case that Philosophy talks about how facts can come to be known, Science tries to summarize the facts that have been discovered to date, Law sets out the conclusions that are now binding... Since, in philosophy, the way in which facts come to be known, and thus what facts may be claimed to be now known is an ongoing question, it follows that some assertion made by philosopher X and claimed by them to be unchallengable, and therefore factual, would be characterised as only a theory or opinion by a skeptic to that point. So, a person strongly convinced that Magic Johnson is the best ever basketball player would state that such is a fact, and no philosopher presently could prove such an assertion to be in error. This, to me is what the section, Rhetorical use, whatever-named, would be about, if it can be clarified. My initiating suggestion presently, is that, following section (1 Aspects) suitable section headings might be (2 How fact is considered in Philosophy), (3 What facts have been discovered in Science), (4 How facts are presented in Law) (5 How facts may be investigated) (6 Skepticism) (7 Are there universally recognised facts) .. Rough sketch only, but this section heading (7Are there universally recognised facts), could house the Rhetorical uses of fact material, when it is rewritten more encyclopediacally.—Newbyguesses - Talk 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Side issue: Thanks, Newbyguesses for clarifying and developing these points further. One side issue, it would have been a little easier to read if your text were formatted a bit more (e.g., paragraphs and lists); admittedly a minor consideration, but every little bit helps.

Indeed, experience tells me that it is generally a waste of time attempting to decipher work that the author has not bothered to render legible. Banno 22:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sections and headings: Generally, your proposals make sense, but some questions: for heading (5) (6) and (7); do you have a body of references or related articles that can act as a foundation for starting these sections? I definitely agree the article could be expanded, but it is pretty obvious that someone else is going to come along and complain WP:OR and WP:RS if the content doesn't have any citations. Even though other WP articles (technically) don't count as references, even those can help, because those other articles may have citations that can be used here. dr.ef.tymac 14:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• For section7, I am considering Russell's The Problems of Philosophy Ch1, p7, also GE Moore's Here is a hand, which may spill over into Skepticism, or be merged there. See article List of philosophical questions section 3, subsections 3.1, 3.3, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9.1, 3.10, and 3.12 would be relevant here (If the article had more information, it is only a list of questions at this time).
• section 6 (Skepticism), would not, obviously, repeat large chunks of philosophical history, (Hume and so on, which are treated elsewhere, but instead use the idea of skepticism to set off against sect7's themes; is there certainty, and how it is that fact merely sometimes means what everybody would say is true.
• section5, Investigating starts out with disputed material, a little uneven in quality, so needs more input of material as well as styling (present contention).

Apologies for setting out some stuff as a stream of ideas, explanation is that I am accustomed to reading talk-pages from top to bottom, and therefore have to find some internal method of rendering arguments that alternate, fluctuate, flare and dwindle, are revived, contradicted, forgotten etc. My rough ideas, I paragraphed poorly, as ideas gell, setting out comes. For an article, however, the style of presentation current here seems most worthwhile - it is superior to any such that I can devise on my own. (I dislike too much bold though, and tend to overdo italics)

I revise my previous comment (previous post above) regarding subsection (2.1 Fact-Value distinction) - the material is good, but when sections and titles move they then jut up against material which originated in a different context, and some clumsiness of flow is thereby occasioned.

• There may be more sections (headings) more cogent than those I mentioned in previous post.
• Language use is a difficult issue with multiple editors working - since I am not editing at the moment, may I boldly observe? Fact is a noun, roughly equivalent to The Truth or Telling the Truth. In defining nouns, avoid the word -definition-, instead find the verbs that are pertinent. If explicating a verb, then "A definition of waming is that (it gets hot)... conversely is smooth.
• This article is on "Fact", a noun. It veers into a discussion, properly, of "factuality" (the state of being a fact) and "facticity" (how reliable is a statement). These are all nouns so, editors, think about verbs, where possible.
• It is a deficiency, in my (stylistic) opinion, that the english language does not contain such verbs as "facting" (as in to tell the truth), factising, (stating the truth systematically), "factualising" and so forth.
• Stylistically, the language, not to mention life/school/work/ experience focuses our thoughts on nouns, and verbs are impoverished. Look at all the lead sections in all the articles that start as: X is defined as - a dog, a duck, a noun, or such. Stopping here, hoping to see some brilliant updates soon, but I will keep posting, as long as my clarifying, or quibbling, or considering, or wondering(s) are helpful, not a waste of paper. — Newbyguesses - Talk 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations and authority

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.

• reply to above post :-
• The refutations (which User:Banno forgot to sign) are valuable: only through rigorous disputation may citations and authorites gain in pertinence. Now there are references to work with (more will be discovered), they must be related, in detail, to material. A word or a sentence appears on a certain line of a certain page of a particular reference book, with a known ISBN number, and supports a particular phrase in the article.

I have given in detail my objections to each citation. They do not support the text they are claimed to support. They should be replaced, or the text edited to render them unnecessary. Banno

• There are sub-articles involved here, material must be expanded, and spread between articles, forming some kind of structure, coherently. We know, WP is not a hierarchy.

Do you mean the links to other main articles? They are not sub-articles, since that would imply the hierarchy to which you rightly object. The sections that link to another main article should contain a short summary explaining why that article is relevant to the topic. Interested readers can then go to the main article for further info. Banno

Thanks for that User:Banno, you put it concisely, I see that now. –Newbyguesses - Talk 12:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure where to whistle up a "competent philosopher" at this time, shops are all closed, do you know of any who will come running, Banno, or DR.E.F.Tymac? Regards, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several working on the Wikipedia, but as a rule they avoid troublesome pages such as this. See User:Dbuckner/Philosophylaughingstock Banno 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Todays new material, supplied by User:Banno, (imho) has not helped much. Banno, if you are going to take out chunks of material, replaced by nothing brilliant, at the same time disputing other sections, you will make it hard to work on the article.

• I would like to take out, from this new material, on stylistic grounds, "at least since", "puzzled" and such solecisms, (which would leave not much, except a reference to Hume).
• The material (you) removed was by no means unsurpassable, but (imho) easier to improve on than what went in today. I could be wrong, and I still aint editing (just one minor sneaked in) Regards —Newbyguesses - Talk 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

My objection to the material that preceded my edit[1] was simply that it was POV in that it assumed fact-value dualism. Banno 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming rework of "Aspects of factuality"

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)

Follow-up: Done. The content has been modified. To help those who may wish to critique the modification, please note the following:

• all of the entries directly reference the Oxford English Dictionary, and all example texts are either identical or substantially similar to the specific examples given in the relevant definitions of that specific single volume;
• WP:NOT#DICT does not prohibit basic definitions given for the purpose of clarifying articles whose terms may be subject to different perspectives and dispute;
• additional support is supplied with direct reference to the American Heritage Dictionary; and
• WP:SYN does not prohibit the integration of content from multiple sources when all of the sources directly relate to the subject matter and topics in the article.

Constructive feedback and comments are of course welcome. dr.ef.tymac 05:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

An improvement. I'm glad to see the previous version gone. Perhaps you might consider reworking this somewhat selective list into the introduction, as is done in knowledge? Banno 07:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective list: Although, in terms of style, the approach used in knowledge is indeed favorable, there are pragmatic concerns here as well that seem to justify a list, a point I emphasized previously in this discussion (see e.g., Introduction section/Purpose/Points {1-3}):

1. an enumeration of basic concepts in a separate section (may be) less prone to "Wikirot";
2. a separate section is more amenable to: i) inclusion of specific examples, and ii) a rigorous word-by-word substantiation directly from reliable sources;
3. it seems appropriate for the lead paragraph to be concise (but not cryptic), with detailed refinements and counter-examples better left to well-cited and separate "sections";
4. the history of this discussion page, as well as notes in cited sources easily demonstrate that the "definition" of fact is subject to lengthy dispute -- some of it justifiable and well-informed, but some of it just plain annoying; and
5. it seems reasonable to weigh stylistic considerations against the pragmatic interests of keeping this article continually improving, accessible, "rot-free", "bloat-free" and well-substantiated.

If any alternative reworking of the current revision of the section, or the article in general, can be done in a manner consistent with this rationale, that's fine, but the current approach seems like the most reasonable compromise given the nature and track-record of this specific article. dr.ef.tymac 15:44, 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)

References added to article

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,

• References 8,9,10 adequately address the first "citation needed"
• ..still thinking about the second "cite-needed", perhaps an even more tight reference can be easily obtained
• Making a piped link to the section in the article epistomology (text is) - "The first issue epistemology must address is the question of what knowledge is." - addresses the third "Cit-need".

—Newbyguesses - Talk 02:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsuported material removed from article to talk

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, or as a proposition or statement that can be demonstrated as true according to the rules of logic or some other formal decision procedure. 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 .

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.

Banno, your insistence on citations is entirely legitimate, but do you have any for the content that you added? There appear to be zero. dr.ef.tymac 13:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Philosophy section: I added some citations, as well as did some copy editing. Anyone else out there want to help me supply citations for this article? It's all fine and good to revise and haggle over the wording (repeatedly) but that's the cart, not the horse. dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

From the policy:Material challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. I would hope that no one would be so foolish as to challenge the assertion that "the Correspondence theory of truth holds that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact" - especially when links are provided to the main article on Correspondence theory of truth, which supports the assertion in its introduction, and provides what I would hope are adequate references, if not in the right form. In other words, your provision of citations here is overkill. Banno

What I have pointed to are citations that do not support the material they are supposed to. I have provided the details, above. Perhaps my attitude seems unfair or too severe, but I think the article has improved considerably since I wandered past. Do you disagree? That would be strange, since the majority of edits in that time have been your own. Banno 18:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

You are welcome to your own opinion of WP:V. I am certainly not going to stop you from providing citations, if that's what you want to do. As for my behaviour, you are welcome to seek outside opinion, if you like. You seem to think that I am just here to be a pain in the neck. But my purpose is the improvement of the article. Writing good philosophy is difficult. Take a look at the talk pages of some related philosophical topics to see what I mean. Again, if there are specific issues in what I have written that requier explanation, let me know. Banno 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to think that I am just here to be a pain in the neck

Kindly point out where I said that? Frankly your underlying motivations for being here are irrelevant. As long as the article keeps moving forward consistent with WP policy and guidelines, and no one is blatantly disruptive, then none of this even bears mentioning on this talk page.

You are welcome to your own opinion of WP:V

Thank you very much. You're welcome to yours also. You're also welcome to selectively take out policy snippets and "refactor" them here; and I assume you recognize that others are welcome to indicate when you do so.

Writing good philosophy is difficult

Yes, it is. Fortunately, that's not what WP contributors are here to do, the editors and authors of published and reliable sources have ostensibly done that for us.

look at the talk pages of some related philosophical topics

And who is not already familiar with the prevailing conditions on many of these philosophy-related articles? These prevailing conditions are precisely why rigorous substantiation is more important (to me anyway) then personal viewpoints, re-interpretations of WP policy and irrelevant speculation about people's motives.

Bottom line: If there were anything you added that required explanation or correction, I would have already corrected it myself or mentioned it by now. Indeed, generally I've agreed with the tenor of your (substantive) contributions, and I am glad you're providing a capable hand ("Thanks to those of you who helped recently to improve this article" were my exact words, in case you've forgotten).

I already stated clearly what my request is from you (and frankly everyone else here) ... so now I will repeat it ... you can say it with me, you know the words, "substantiation from published and reliable sources". If you don't intend to honor my request, that's fine, just as long as everyone is on record. dr.ef.tymac 22:50, 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)

Looking again, the material you have re-inserted is good. I was too bold in removing it. The stuff about citations not supporting the claim referred specifically to the now removed section, as detailed in talk:fact#Citations and authority above. The section on Negative, modal, disjunctive and moral facts needs expansion, of course. It could be merged into the section on compound facts, as a finale hanging comment, since the fact/value and counterfactual distinctions are about moral and modal facts, respectively - some expansion might be needed. Then we should have some specific explanation of the problems with negation and disjunction. Banno 04:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy section

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)

POV: The POV issue you raised can be easily resolved by a clarification, or a quote including a counter-example. I've no problem with that, as long as the content comes from a reliable source, and is not just the formulation of a WP contributor who happens to personally disagree with the existing content from published and reliable sources. No one contends Bhaskar's views represent the sum total exposition of all fundamental issues and questions of epistemology and ontology. If you expect to find such exposition in a single quote, good luck buddy.

The realist John Searle, for example, would probably disagree with the quote, as might other philosophers who distinguish between facts and the expression of facts - not everyone thinks facts are "historically specific social realities". I am not suggesting that we find a single quote to sum up all fundamental issues and questions of epistemology and ontology, but that we remove an obviously biased quote. Banno 21:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point, *I* don't even agree with the quote, but I do think one should be in there. If you've got a better quote, have at it. You've got one from Searle that generally and fundamentally connects "fact" with "epistemology" and "ontology" ... and is accessible to a general audience? By all means step up to the plate. You've got one to counter-balance Bhaskar? Hooray! Otherwise, unless you are saying that Bhaskar is fundamentally unreliable and a crackpot, I don't see how your objections help to move the article forward. Mere disagreement is not adequate grounds for removing reliable and relevant content. dr.ef.tymac 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But why do we need a quote? Banno 03:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For both stylistic and pragmatic reasons related to stabilizing the improvements to this article. It seems you and I both agree the article is improving. There are "big picture" considerations here that I hope you readily recognize, without requiring a painfully exhaustive explanation to your previous question. Again, I won't be the slightest bit offended if anyone provides an alternate that plainly connects "fact" with "epistemology" and/or "ontology". Yes, I know, the connection *should* be obvious to anyone familiar with the concepts, but not every reader of (or potential contributor to) this article will arrive with the same perspectives. dr.ef.tymac 13:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

paradigm: Although, admittedly, I am not a fan of that word either, this is an issue you should take up with the editor of the published and reliable source from which this exact wording is taken. You can also clarify this wording with a refinement or counter-example found in any of several published and reliable sources, which you are free to add at any time.

I was referring to the use of the word in the line "The proper analysis and interpretation of fact is central to various theoretic paradigms in philosophy", not toe the quote. Banno

Then change it. Is "approaches" good enough for you? dr.ef.tymac 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

conflate: This is an issue you should take up with the editor of the published and reliable source from which this exact wording is taken. You can also clarify your generalized point on the nature and methods of philosophical inquiry with an excerpt found in any of several published and reliable sources, which you are free to add at any time; so long as it is relevant to this article.

Are you here saying that the words were an unacknowledged quote? Banno

No, I am saying the precise words "conflate fact" ( as opposed to "distinguish fact from" ) are included in a published source, one which is included as a footnote. The entire sentence is not verbatim, but "conflate fact" is. I'm also saying you are welcome to add clarification if it moves the article forward.

Expanding the section: Sounds like a good idea. I look forward to the proposed addition, as well as the supporting substantiation from published and reliable sources.

General audience: In addition, please remember that the content of WP articles is intended to be accessible to a general audience. Refinements and "corrections" to imprecise terminology is fine when necessary to expand details or correct contradictions, but "introductory level" terminology is entirely appropriate in an "introduction". dr.ef.tymac 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears from your tone that I have upset you. I think that you have done good work over the last few days, and that the article is the better for it. Again, if you have a problem with what I have done ore said, you are welcome to seek support from other parties - indeed, I'd welcome a wider discussion. Banno 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Upset me? Quite the opposite, I've actually found some of your remarks to be rather comical, if you really wanna know. If I had a problem with you individually, I would have already said so. In fact, I've actually thanked you (and others) numerous times now. I've also indicated that my primary concern is improvement of the article, in addition to some pragmatic considerations to help make sure the "improvements" stay that way. One such consideration is ... aww, shucks, you know what I'm gonna say: "rigorous substantiation from published reliable sources". :D

Everything else is really beyond the scope of this discussion page as far as I'm concerned. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well-cited versus readable and cohesive

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)

I haven't got the link working in Rhetorical.... It goes to this —

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)

Scientific section: recent major update and duplicated content

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)

It wasn't a prior contribution of mine, I just don't see the rationale for deleting it. How about discussing deletions on the talk page before making them? Then, issues relating to re-insertion need not arise. 1Z 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the refs could be removed, but I don't see how that justifies removing material. There is a difference between unverified and innacurate.1Z 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Peterdjones, you seem to have entirely missed the point. You have pasted in content to the article that was never removed to begin with. Please, could you actually read the section "Fact in science" in its entirety? You will see what I am talking about. I appreciate that you may be busy, but it would help if you could at least read the article before making changes. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 19:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Helpful hint: Just in case you are extremely busy, search for "Thomas Kuhn" with the "find in this page" feature of your web browser. This should make it easier for you to see the problem here. dr.ef.tymac 19:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Could all editors discuss deletions on the talk page before making them? Thankyou. 1Z 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see above. dr.ef.tymac 18:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete without discussion. 1Z 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how many ways do you want me to say this ... You have re-added material to the article that was never deleted to begin with. Please, pretty please with sugar on top, and rainbow sprinkles, read the article section? I beseech you earnestly. Many thanks. dr.ef.tymac 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact as assertion

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)

Would you prefer "scientific assertions of fact" ? ... (I'm assuming you've had an opportunity to actually read the relevant text, and you've evaluated the point that's being made here). I welcome any clarifications. dr.ef.tymac 19:09, 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)

Since there is credible evidence to suggest you've yet to read the relevant section, I will wait till you've had an opportunity to do so before elaborating. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 19:19, 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":

• 1) states of affairs in the external world (covered in "Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact"); and
• 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. (covered in "Fact and the scientific method")

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?

No. That should be obvious. The sources referenced discuss this in adequate detail. Some of them are even available on-line for free. Is it your common practice to ask questions and make edits without actually having read what you are referring to? dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

No one is asserting that as far as I know. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You imply it with your comment:

"1) states of affairs in the external world (covered in "Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact");" 1Z 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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?

Well, there is the problem that "fact as assertion" doesn't arrive the article says it does. I can also detect a third meaning of fact hovering in the background of the "Scholarship" sectin: fact as accepted doctrine.1Z 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, gather up some references and improve the article therewith. dr.ef.tymac 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

"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)

Per Falsifiability:

   Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown 
   false by an observation or a physical experiment.

How much of this article and the wikilinks and associated references have you actually read? Not that I don't thoroughly enjoy reading your random musings here on the discussion page, but really, it seems like a terrible waste of time to reiterate content that is already supplied and unambiguously stated elsewhere. dr.ef.tymac 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"An assertion" can be an assertion of fact or of theory. How can you falsify what is supposed to be true in the first place? What would you falsify somehting with other than a fact ("observation or physical experiment") 1Z 22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The threshold test for proper application of the term "falsifiable" to an assertion, according to Popper and followers, is the logical possbility that one or more contrary instance(s) can be shown, assuming that if contrary instances exist, and that if such instance(s) are found, that such instances can be shown. The type of assertion to which Popper refers is a generalization, a class of statement that Hempel and a few others call a universal generalization. Any number of individual factual occurrences may coincide, supplement, partially coincide, partially contradict or completely contradict many such generalizations. When a scientific theory becomes a "fact", it merely consists of overwhelming agreement that the statement contained in the theory has been adequately confirmed for the relevant community of researchers to rest confidently, i.e., that there's no doubt about the dependability of the statement. The statement may be said to be a fact. For instance, "no need to go out and drop an apple and a cannonball side-by-side and measure their respective rates of descent anymore prior to using the theory of gravity in your work, guys--we already regard it as a fact." And so forth. ... Kenosis 22:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me of a fourth' definition of fact: Very Well Confirmed Theory. ". A theory that has withstood the test of time and the collection of new data is about as close as we can get to a scientific fact." 1Z 22:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you are recanting your previous qualification. Please one question at a time. Have you looked at the references and links yet? The WP article gives a lot of explanation and even examples. The referenced sources are pretty clear. It's fine to want to clarify and discuss, but it seems fair to expect people to make a good faith effort to actually read the relevant material first. dr.ef.tymac 22:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am already familiar with the subject and the other wikipedia pages are imperfect. How about answering the questions directly? 1Z 22:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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:

• yes or no; have you read the references supplied for the material you're asking about?
• yes or no; have you read Falsifiability here on WP?

I await your "yes or no" responses. That will help me answer you. dr.ef.tymac 22:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I have read falsifiability. The page makes it clear f. does not apply to "singular existential statements". 1Z 22:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, just one more "yes or no" needed for this to be a discussion. dr.ef.tymac 22:37, 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)

Well actually I was referring to Ravetz, but I can see where you're coming from. Ok, your turn. dr.ef.tymac 22:44, 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)

Other issues

• If there is a third meaning of fact lurking here, maybe, fact as accepted doctrine comes close to fact is sometimes merely what people say? So its close to rhetorical uses of fact? What the authorites say or what the majority of people think? So that section would be where such material belonged. And is Skepticism worthy of a section in this article, later?
• There are sections for what "Facts are in ...". Best to work on those ,slowly, since the process does seem to be working here at present, improving the article. And sort the other stuff into later sections? Just some humble observations to help along the article.Newbyguesses - Talk 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice work thus far

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)

Agreed. "Fact in law" is still rather meagre, and can use more on Pleadings and Investigation, but then the primary articles for those items need attention first. "Correspondence and the slingshot argument" looks good, hats off to User:Banno, as well as all others helping to make tangible and meaningful progress on this article. dr.ef.tymac 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the work on this article is at this time being undertaken in a helpful and commendable manner, my appreciation of this extends gratefully to all concerned. Though I do have some problems concerning the material in even the early sections, particularly Fact in Phil, as to how such disparate material can exist in close juxtaposition. I untangled two separate threads in section2, Fact-philosophy with this edit. (16 JuneUTC13:52) Given the disparity of this material now revealed, would it be better to set this out with subsection headings? As it stands, themes are stll entangled looking at the rest of Section2, or will more writing come, and sort this out that way? –Newbyguesses - Talk 22:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3