Truth and fact

[Whut]

What is the useful distinction between 'truth' and 'fact'?

What is the distinction between 'truth' and 'belief'?

it seems like 3 words for 2 things?? > fact and belief?

[edy420]

What is the useful distinction between 'truth' and 'fact'?

What is the distinction between 'truth' and 'belief'?

it seems like 3 words for 2 things?? > fact and belief?

Belief is based on faith.
Fact is based on evidence.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, to a theist, God exists based on mostly faith but some fact.
For most atheists, God does not exist, because most evidence of God can be explained with science.
In both cases, from their perspectives, they both hold the truth.

[Zin5ki]

According to the highly orthodox Correspondence theory of truth, the relation between the concepts of truth and facthood is demonstrated by biconditionals of the following form:

 p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact.

Note that this is a biconditional regarding propositions and not sentences. Semantic considerations need to be accounted for in order to formulate a theory of when a sentence "p" is true.

As for facts themselves, their ontology is a central and highly diverse topic in metaphysics. Within the analytic tradition there are proposals involving the identification of facts with obtaining states of affairs, sets of possible worlds, amongst other kinds of object (abstract or otherwise). The above link touches upon this matter.

Beliefs are mental states. More specifically, they are commonly taken to be propositional attitudes directed towards particular propositions. For example, my belief that Socrates is wise is directed towards the proposition of Socrates possessing the property of being wise. This proposition is (hopefully) a true one, and in accordance with the Correspondence theory we may hence state that this belief of mine is directed towards a fact.

[Lomax]

According to the highly orthodox Correspondence theory of truth, the relation between the concepts of truth and facthood is demonstrated by biconditionals of the following form:

 p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact.

For my part I don't like the correspondence theory, because it gives the illusion of explaining something, and meanwhile introduces a superfluous abstract entity. But I think we can still make the same point in a Tarskian spirit:

 "p" is true in L iff it is a fact that p.

The backbone remains the same: truth belongs to the sentence and reality belongs to the world.

[Neri]

Whut,

Zin and Lomax have provided excellent explanations. Nonetheless, it may be helpful to put the matter more plainly. Truth and falsity are things that belong to statements or declarations—what may properly be called “propositions.” Of course, a proposition requires someone to do the proposing. Therefore, truth and falsity, as such, do not exist outside of our consciousness. However, this does not mean that anything one may believe, is true simply because he believes it. The same may be said of religious faith. Beliefs are only mental states that may or may not be grounded in reality.

As Zin has put it, “truth corresponds to a fact.” But, what is a fact? A fact is something whose reality does not depend on whether or not anyone believes it. Facts are stubborn things that do not care about our beliefs. For example, if a husband is killed in a war, it would be true to declare that he is dead even if his wife is in denial and refuses to accept his death. Such a declaration is true because the husband’s death is a fact. Solipsism is rubbish precisely because there are such things as facts--realities apart from the mind.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What is the useful distinction between 'truth' and 'fact'?

What is the distinction between 'truth' and 'belief'?

it seems like 3 words for 2 things?? > fact and belief?

As far as I understand it, it's a chain of understanding with respect to varying degrees of accuracy and verification.

Keep in mind that Truth is in the background from this point on, not necessarily being known, depending upon the step we're on.

First, we start with the ignorance of the truth. At this point we have no association with what it is that we will eventually know, in truth; no belief, no fact, and no understanding of the particular truth at all.

Second we have the belief of a possible truth. At this stage we formulate an idea of something but there is nothing we know about the belief indicating if in fact it is truth. It could be or it could not be. At this stage we could think that we had proof that in fact it was the truth, but in truth, it could be successfully argued as a falsehood.

Third we have the fact of truth. At this point we have verification, proof, that the belief was in fact truth. There is no doubt that it is truth. In Truth, no one could successfully argue that it wasn't truth.

Keep in mind that all truths existed from the very beginning of our journey but we had no knowledge, that the one we eventually found, was in fact the truth, until step 3.

[Incompatibalist]

My distinction is this... 'truth' is used in contexts wherein a person or object concerned can be said to be truthful or the exact opposite... dishonest.
Now 'fact' is used in contexts where subjects involved can be said to be factual or the exact opposite... fictional.

Though they both refer to the same thing that is the essence of it's being, something that is reality.

[Neri]

If facts are real in themselves, a proposition can be either true or false. It cannot be both. However, there is a separate, more vexing issue.

The traditional definition of knowledge as a justified, true belief begs the question so far as “true” is concerned; for there is no infallible arbiter of truth who holds court for mere mortals. Therefore, the question is: Can we ever know what is perfectly true?

Propositions that make a claim to absolute truth only because they avoid linguistic contradiction do not really correspond to facts. They only sort out the meanings of words. Words are our inventions. They do not belong to the world.

Our real sources of knowledge are sensory information and the inferences derived therefrom. Inferring from the particular to the general is called induction and from the general to the particular, deduction. Because there can be no deductions without inductions, knowledge of things not directly experienced depends upon the truth of inductions. Further, because the truth of any inference depends upon the capacity of the senses to determine what is factual, all knowledge in rooted in sensory experience.

Surely, we must grant that the senses, at least to some extent, have this capacity, else we would not have lasted this long as a species. Yet, the senses are not infallible. How often have we said,” I know what I saw,” only to find out later that we were wrong? Our senses serve us well, yet things are not always as they seem.

The induction upon which virtually all deductions depend is this one: “All things have a cause.” Science relies upon it. But, how can we say that all things have a cause when we cannot possibly experience all things? We must admit that the truth of this induction can never be fully determined. Indeed, the same may be said of all inductions, for inferential knowledge cannot be incontestable if it remains subject to revision.

Thus, the human condition denies us access to absolute truth. The only truth of which we are capable is a provisional truth justified by the current state of the collective experience of mankind. Yet one man’s justification is another man’s folly. Nevertheless, as time passes, truth becomes a kind of consensus, as the evidence mounts for or against a given proposition. For us, truth is always a work in progress.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Truth is in fact absolute and exists without human knowledge, which has never been in debate.

The only debate regarding truth has been the criterion by which it is tested; Attempting to remove what it is in being human while being human.

Since no one seems to agree on one particular set of criterion. Philosophers have been divided yielding 5 main theories. These are the Correspondence, Coherence, Constructivist, Consensus, and Pragmatic theories. There are other theories to consider that I will not mention here. With a little research, I suggest you find and read up on all of them.

The most believed theories as to the proper criterion of truth, based upon a 2009 survey where 3226 respondents were asked, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.

44.9% of respondents accept or lean towards correspondence theories.
20.7% accept or lean towards deflationary theories.
13.8% epistemic theories.

My point is that if you "truly" want to find the answer as to what you may consider as the proper criterion to be used in testing truth, do some research on each theory so you can decide for yourself. Only you can determine what camp you belong to. Don't take the word of any of us here in the forum, because we may not represent the school of thought that you agree with.

This then has been the most honest and "Truthful" thing I could have shared with you on the subject.

[Lomax]

Truth is in fact absolute and exists without human knowledge, which has never been in debate.

Are we to forget Jacques Derrida already? (I mean, I wish I could, but...)

[Neri]

Facts are absolute and “exist without human knowledge.” Truth is the property of a proposition that corresponds to a fact. A proposition requires someone with the power of language to propose it. If there were no one to do this, facts would remain but not language. Therefore, no propositions, true or false, would remain.

Because languages have an inherent ambiguity they are subject to varying interpretations. I am reminded of a case I tried some years ago that involved a young man who was attacked by a mob. When I asked him if he suffered any injuries as a result of the attack, he replied: “They x-rayed my head but they didn’t find anything.” Laughter broke out in the courtroom. Apparently, the spectators had taken a meaning the witness had not intended.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Facts are absolute and “exist without human knowledge.” Truth is the property of a proposition that corresponds to a fact. A proposition requires someone with the power of language to propose it. If there were no one to do this, facts would remain but not language. Therefore, no propositions, true or false, would remain.

Because languages have an inherent ambiguity they are subject to varying interpretations. I am reminded of a case I tried some years ago that involved a young man who was attacked by a mob. When I asked him if he suffered any injuries as a result of the attack, he replied: “They x-rayed my head but they didn’t find anything.” Laughter broke out in the courtroom. Apparently, the spectators had taken a meaning the witness had not intended.

I was wondering if it would be anything less than self stroking, for anyone to not see that it's a fact that laws were made by people, for people, to protect people to punish people and to judge people, none of which can be effectively accomplished, a high percentage of the time, unless those attempting to do so, know all about people, such that they'd have to have a PhD in Psychology and Sociology to ensure, among other things, the removal of their brand of personal bias?

Of course before you answer, I'd like to swear you in:

Do you, Neri, swear to tell the "truth," the whole "truth," and nothing but the "truth," so help you, god?

hmmmmm... I wonder why the word "facts" (Origin:1530–40) wasn't substituted for all those "truths." (Origin:before 900) hmmmmm... I wonder!

Do you, Neri, swear to tell the "facts," all the "facts," and nothing but the "facts," so help you, god?

I wonder if it was because of all those philosophers attempting to eradicate all of the possible ambiguity from truth, such that others, (couldn't wait for the end of the debate, it's still going on), wanted to use it to their benefit, such that they were forced to create a new word that meant exactly the same thing as truth once did, that is before all those philosophers started working to ensure their tenure. Because in fact the same arguments surrounding truth, could be raised against the word: "fact," with the same amount of fervor. I mean, aren't facts subject to human perception the same as truth?

[Neri]

Spheres,

Your reasoning makes a pair with your sense of humor.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Spheres,

Your reasoning makes a pair with your sense of humor.

Thank you kind sir, I'll take that as a compliment and if my assumptions are correct, I've now found a new respect for you! Which could be the start of the replenishment of my faith in humanity, but for now, the jury is still out!

[NoAngst]

Truth is correspondence of utterance and what is.

What is is that which is empirically verified.

A fact is a true utterance (an utterance which has been empirically verified).

A belief is what is true for you, not what is true.

[Neri]

Whut,

There is no distinction between conscious thought and its content, simply because one cannot think without thinking about something.

In theory, facts are realities that do not depend upon what anyone believes. However, to know a fact, one must believe it. Certainly, one can believe both fact and fiction. Unfortunately, one can seldom be sure which of the two he is entertaining.

Facts belong to the world. Yet, we are part of the world, as our thoughts are part of us.

To have a conscious thought is to know it. One can hardly disbelieve that he thinks what he thinks. One’s thoughts are facts about which one has exclusive and certain knowledge. For example, if I have the intent to kill someone, that intent is a fact about which I have certain knowledge.

However, one cannot be certain about what another person thinks. Thus, one cannot be sure if someone else has the intent to kill. One can only look at the circumstances. For example, if there is testimony that a man accused of murder pointed a gun at the victim’s head, said “die you bastard!” and fired—one may reasonably infer that he had the intent to kill. There is no reasonable doubt of it, even though there can be no certainty of it.

Thoughts are facts. Beliefs are facts because they are thoughts. However, this does not mean that all beliefs are true. One certainly would know that he has a certain belief, even if he cannot be sure if what he believes corresponds to reality. That is, although one cannot be certain that what he believes is a fact, he can be certain of the fact that he believes it.

[owleye]

To have a conscious thought is to know it. One can hardly disbelieve that he thinks what he thinks. One’s thoughts are facts about which one has exclusive and certain knowledge. For example, if I have the intent to kill someone, that intent is a fact about which I have certain knowledge.

I think this is a poor example. I have my doubts that we know our own intentions, or at least know all of them. If asked about them what we say might easily be called a rationalization. Of course what we say about what we intended may not in fact be our intention, and so might not be the important measure of our knowing them but it may also mean that we don't always know what we intended. Perhaps a better example would be knowing you are thinking about a pink elephant.

James

[brownsteff]

Belief is based on faith.
Fact is based on evidence.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

hands up to you=> those has a relevance to each other but came in different factor to justify it..

[Neri]

Owleye,

Intentions are to be distinguished from motivations. Intentions are, by definition, conscious, and therefore known. Motivations, on the other hand, may be unconscious, and therefore unknown.

[newyear]

What is the useful distinction between 'truth' and 'fact'?

For what it is worth, I'll add my opinion to the topic. A fact is something that has been perceived by one's senses.

A truth is the description of this fact.

The problem arises in that not all facts are correctly perceived, although most of them are. And, not all descriptions of facts are correct even when the person is not deliberately using a lie.

What is the distinction between 'truth' and 'belief'?

Isn't a belief something that one thinks is true? This is purely psychological. That is, one's mind is reflecting upon itself.

This may be too succinct, but it may help you for a start.

[ruweenj]

Opinion; is never true as it is subject to change
belief: Can yield to knowledge (truth) but can be unproven
Knowledge: always true
Truth; derives from true. what is true is justified belief. therefore knowledge
fact is knowledge never changing

[owleye]

Owleye,

Intentions are to be distinguished from motivations. Intentions are, by definition, conscious, and therefore known. Motivations, on the other hand, may be unconscious, and therefore unknown.

Didn't notice this until now. It makes me wonder whether you think self-deception is possible. For now, I'm just curious. However, if you think we always know our intentions and can't deceive ourselves, that would suggest that tell-tale signs of that deception would be present, if they faced examination. (Let me acknowledge that when facing examination, we are (often) prompted to examine ourselves such that doubt can creep in, even in cases where we do actually know something.) In any case, I think there may be something to this, and the perceptive among us are able to detect fake smiles from true ones, for example, even (or perhaps especially) at a younger age. However, I'd be skeptical that every belief we hold about our our intentions are true beliefs or even that while there are tell-tale signs of our apparent deception, it may not actually mean that we are actually aware of them. So, my view is that not only is self-deception possible, I think its occurrence is fairly common. Freud's state of denial encompasses this. Though I don't think denial is omnipresent, I think it is not an unusual state of affairs.

Of course, if in all these cases you might respond that when we are self-deceived it is a deception as to our motivation, not of our intention. They don't co-mingle. It's either one or the other. Or if they do co-mingle, they can be sufficiently separated such that when we exclaim: "Well, that's what I thought I was doing.", we are wrong about the motivation but right about what we thought. By definition, then, intention is conscious (mindful) intention. There is no trying to do something if we are not aware of what it is we are trying to do. I don't agree with this position, but I suppose you could define it away like that.

James

[ALF]

Let me add my 2 cents' worth to this very interesting discussion.

Truth, by (my own) definition, is an observation or theory that has not been contradicted yet by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded.

So Newton’s equation: “force equals mass times acceleration, where mass is an unchangeable constant attribute of material bodies”, was a truth until Einstein, by his special theory of relativity, suggested experiments that produced results contradicting Newton. At that point Newton’s ‘truth’ became ‘false’ and required modification.

Truth applies to either physical observation (directly with our senses or indirectly with our instruments) or to a theory (which is usually a statement about cause-and-effect relationships). Physical observations have to be repeatable and consistent at ever increasing accuracy, to be considered true; theories have to produce verifiable (by observation) predictions.

The only intolerable state is ‘contradiction’.

Life is not different from science, only a lot more complicated. Basic principles still apply. A while ago, telling someone how to find truth, I used the example of Hercule Poirot. Imagine that you are a detective. A murder has been committed and you have to find out the truth. You question suspects and witnesses; some tell the truth, some lie. You have no idea which. You collect all the evidence, all the statements from those interviewed and build a model in your head. At that point “the little grey cells” ought to do their job.

You arrange the known facts and statements in such a way that you have minimum number of contradictions in the model. You discard those that can not be used without contradicting most of the other facts. Then you try come up with a theory that agrees with the largest number of ‘facts’ and is supported by your personal experience, the experience of those you trust most, and discard as ‘untrue’, all the rest. Then you think you know what the truth is.

You draw logical conclusions and test these in real life. If they check out, you can be reasonably sure. You will never be absolutely sure -- truth is still only those theories that have not yet been contradicted.

Applying this method to our understanding of the ‘human condition’ is no different. The key to a reasonable confidence in knowing truth are:

· have extensive personal life experience (needs observation)
· learn as many facts as you can (needs a lot of reading)
· keep all of these facts in mind most of the time (needs a good memory)
· try to form a theoretical model (needs pattern recognition ability)
· be completely open minded (needs intellectual integrity)

Then you can be reasonably sure, in the relative sense. In the absolute sense you can be only 50% sure. Either you are right, or you are wrong.

However, we can only do the best we can do. For all practical purposes, I can call it truth: 'my truth'. And it stays true until someone proves it false.

Unfortunately, when the topic of truth comes up, most people assume we are talking about metaphysics or quantum theory and the conversation becomes highly philosophical and highly unpractical.

[owleye]

Let me add my 2 cents' worth to this very interesting discussion.

Truth applies to either physical observation (directly with our senses or indirectly with our instruments) or to a theory (which is usually a statement about cause-and-effect relationships). Physical observations have to be repeatable and consistent at ever increasing accuracy, to be considered true; theories have to produce verifiable (by observation) predictions.

The only intolerable state is ‘contradiction’.

I think it might be useful not to use the term 'contradiction' here. It's true that 'the moon is made of green cheese' and 'the moon is not made of green cheese' are contradictory statements. However, empirical evidence doesn't lend itself to demonstrating the truth of something along these contradictory lines. Theories are proposed to account for evidence. The evidence of the moon looking like it is made of green cheese might be confirmed if in fact it is made of green cheese. We can go to the moon and check (as one possible test for this.) However, we're not looking for a contradiction here. We're merely testing to see whether it might be made of something else. And what that something else is might not contradict it being made of green cheese. In other words, if it is found that the moon is made of something else, say rocks and dust, this doesn't contradict that it is made of green cheese, because rocks and dust may be comprised of the same ingredients as green cheese -- i.e., something about them may overlap. Recall Thales' everything is composed of water. Well, two thirds of water is hydrogen, one of the most abundant and stable elements in all of existence. He wasn't that far off. The way science advances is not in finding contradictions, but in finding better theories to account for the evidence.

James

[ALF]

One suggestion, James, (in good humour -- no offense intended): bite into the moon and if it breaks on of your teeth, then it was probably made of either rocks or very old green cheese!

PS. or both, or neither.

[Whut]

Greetings travellers,

Many enlightening replies here worthy of proper philosophical reponce, one I'm not capable of giving. I apreaciate it greatly, it has helped my thinking. (and others that have read I'm sure)

However, I would like to move this conversation further if possible, and, that is to:

How truth is handled in the real world.

Truth is a word we all use. Not so many of us are philosophers (myself included). So then, what is truth, in the real world today? It seems like an excuse for ignorance if I look around. Or rather, an excuse for belief.

I'm still unable to see a useful* distinction between truth and fact. The best I've come across is:

Truth is experience, Fact is data.

BUT WHAT IS experience, if not a form of data? (If not THE form of data)

So is truth a 'kind of fact' or 'fact untill further notice'? Then what is a Fact, if not bound by these same conditions? Why is it rational people put up with 'truth'? There, seems, true or false (probable true or false). I see nothing between that, unless we wish to question our own existence, somehow?....

I strongly believe the word 'truth' should not be ambigous by any means, for hopefully obvious reasons.... There is no reason Truth and Fact should not be interchangeable. So what am I (and most of the the real world) missing?

Is this 'truth' some sort of preservation of 'freedom of thought' or something similar? I find it baffling.

*real world

[Whut]

Truth is in fact absolute and exists without human knowledge, which has never been in debate.

Are we to forget Jacques Derrida already? (I mean, I wish I could, but...)

Would love to read some of this guys stuff, if it's such an influence on the matter, any recommendations? :)

[owleye]

Whut.. In consideration of your not claiming to be a philosopher, you might give us your motivation for making any sort of distinction between truth and fact. What is driving your interest in the subject matter. Do you find that folks are generally confused about these terms and misrepresent them or mischaracterize things that should be considered facts as truth or vice-versa?

Obviously they are different, have different meanings, different usages and the like. You seem to have a philosophical bent toward clarifying the terms presumably to advance our understanding. When Joe Friday interviews people asking for "just the facts, ma'am" versus the oath taken by witnesses that request testimony given to be the "truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth" are clear enough. But you may be thinking of truth in quite a different way, as something intangible, out of reach, in the great beyond, something akin to an ideal, as Plato would have it. Something that we search for, like justice, or goodness or beauty, as part of some eternal quest. I don't know.

James

[Rilx]

How truth is handled in the real world.

Truth is a word we all use. Not so many of us are philosophers (myself included). So then, what is truth, in the real world today?

'True' and 'false' are logical values of the relation between a description (proposition, sentence) and its referent in the real world: a fact. We use 'truth' as a shortcut for 'true description'. Only descriptions can be true, real world is as it is. You don't point a tree and say, "see, there's a truth" but if someone says "see, there's a tree" you can say "yes, you said a truth".

[Owen]

What is the useful distinction between 'truth' and 'fact'?

What is the distinction between 'truth' and 'belief'?

it seems like 3 words for 2 things?? > fact and belief?

IMO...
Truth is that which can be shown to be the case. Truth is a property of propositions.
Facts are empirical situations, happenings. Fact is not a property of propositions.

Truth requires mind and language..facts do not.

Elementary propositions represent facts.
We show the truth of elementary propositions by correspondence of objects in the situation
and terms in the proposition.

We show the truth of non-empirical propositions in virtue of logic (proof).
All truths are relative to the system that decides it.
For example 2+2=4 is true without any reference to facts.

Belief is assumed truth.