Difference between revisions of "Fact"
(The next installment in Robledo's guide to facts. More later! :)) |
(some clarification, I hope.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | A '''fact''' is perhaps best described as a | + | A '''fact''' is perhaps best described as a statement that is [[truth|true]]. Facts are generally held to be [[mind-independent]], i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place. |
| − | + | In logic, a [[Statement (logic)|statement]] has a [[truth value]], that is to say it is ''capable of being true '''or''' false''. Not all statements are of this form, as we can see below: | |
1. Table [[salt]] is comprised of [[sodium]] and [[chlorine]]. | 1. Table [[salt]] is comprised of [[sodium]] and [[chlorine]]. | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
In statement 2, the roles are reversed. This time it is the very existence of the subject-entity that allows room for dispute. As all philosophical "proofs" of the existence of God are highly controversial, if not outright failures, the usual fallback position is an assertion of [[faith]]. As it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of God (see [[verification transcendence]]), a [[stalemate]] is the result. | In statement 2, the roles are reversed. This time it is the very existence of the subject-entity that allows room for dispute. As all philosophical "proofs" of the existence of God are highly controversial, if not outright failures, the usual fallback position is an assertion of [[faith]]. As it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of God (see [[verification transcendence]]), a [[stalemate]] is the result. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Statement 3 seems pretty straightforward, but if one is working in base 16, it is false (in base 16, 5 + 6 = B, and 8 + 9 = 11). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Statement 4 requires a much more in-depth investigation and understanding of the scientific reasons why the statement would be interpreted as true or false. | ||
Revision as of 00:59, May 12, 2007
A fact is perhaps best described as a statement that is true. Facts are generally held to be mind-independent, i.e. they would continue to be the case whether or not anyone believed them, or indeed whether or not there were any minds to believe them in the first place.
In logic, a statement has a truth value, that is to say it is capable of being true or false. Not all statements are of this form, as we can see below:
1. Table salt is comprised of sodium and chlorine.
2. Table salt is comprised of zinc and chlorine.
3. The Beatles were great.
4. The Beatles were rubbish.
Statements 1 & 2 clearly have truth values of T & F respectively. We can therefore assert statement 1 as a fact. In the unlikely case of disagreement, there would be a straighforward recourse to direct experimental proof.
Statements 3 & 4, however, are more problematic. Whatever the weight of support for either side, there remains the possibility of two optimally informed and impartial judges failing to agree (see cognitive command). Without recourse to any direct method of proof, neither statement can be said to have a truth value and thus neither can be asserted as a fact.
Disputed entities, terms and properties
Assertions of fact become more difficult in cases where an opponent has room to question the validity of an entity, term or property contained within the statement. If we consider the following statements:
3. 5 + 6 = 11
4. Man evolved from apes.
Statement 1 is an apparently straightforward identification of a documented historical figure (Pol Pot) with the property of evil. In order for it to be true, however, a proponent must provide some non-trivial account of the property of evil and how we might come to know it. This is far from easy. Providing a exhaustive list of Pol Pot's "evil" deeds would be insufficient - indeed, it begs the question of how we know those deeds to be evil themselves.
In statement 2, the roles are reversed. This time it is the very existence of the subject-entity that allows room for dispute. As all philosophical "proofs" of the existence of God are highly controversial, if not outright failures, the usual fallback position is an assertion of faith. As it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of God (see verification transcendence), a stalemate is the result.
Statement 3 seems pretty straightforward, but if one is working in base 16, it is false (in base 16, 5 + 6 = B, and 8 + 9 = 11).
Statement 4 requires a much more in-depth investigation and understanding of the scientific reasons why the statement would be interpreted as true or false.
