Talk:Fact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Epistemology Metaphysics

Archive 1:Up to 19 June 2007

Contents 1 Lead (again) 2 Putting this up for GA review? 3 pragmatism 4 Fact in Law 5 Basic Definitions 6 This statement is a known fact since it has been verified by observations, and communicated in words. 7 Rhetorical use of the word "fact" 8 Correspondence and the slingshot argument 9 Fact in psych 10 What's missing 11 Suggestive fact 12 External Links

[edit] Lead (again)

leaving "truth" out of the first sentence because it is somewhat tautological here

All correct definitions are "tautological", if you want to look at it that way.

removing "something that is the case" from first sentence. It's clumsy, superfluous, and redundant in addition to "something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

These definitions do not amount to the same thing. Something can be the case but unverifiable.

1Z 22:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Philosophers divide facts into states of affairs and events - they certainly do not consider them to be somethings. But how pedantic do we need to be in an introduction? I think we shoudl let it be, and focus on the body of the article. Banno 00:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have missed the point. An even can occur (or a state of affairs can obtain) without being verifiable). 1Z 08:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Or did you miss my point? Having sat through the two-years-plus-long debate on the introduction to truth, I'm quite aware that this can be the hardest part of the article to write. While I agree that the present intro sucks, my advice is to leave it until the remainder of the article is in better shape. That way you will have a firmer basis for whatever content you wish to place there. (Of course, this advice will be ignored, leading to a protracted discussion on a non-issue...) Banno 21:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't leave it as you found it...1Z 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. Banno 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact as truth and fact as something that is the case were taken out of the LeadPara because it made the sentence clumsy, not because they are not true, verifiable statements of fact, which need to go back in at some point to basic definitions.

If you think they should be moved rather than deleted, why not do so in the same edit? Iyt It is generally hard to see what you are seeking to achieve. with your edits. You "stylistic" changes change the content as well. 1Z 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A fact is "truth'; ^[1] and a fact is "something that is the case";^[2] — (OED, 2nd Ed. page 2 million?)

—Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OED Cite: If you're going by the same OED edition that is already cited in the article, the relevant definitions are: 1) "something ... that is actually the case" (defn 4a, p. 651 [already referenced in the article]); and 2) "truth attested by direct observation" (defn 6a, p. 651 [already referenced in the article]).

Note that there does not appear to be a definition reflecting "fact as truth" as indicated here (by some) in this discussion (fact as truth regardless of whether it is verified or observed). That's not to say that the definition is invalid, but close scrutiny of OED does not appear to directly substantiate it, thus justifying an alternate citation. dr.ef.tymac 01:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition was in the reference given, Chamber's dictionary. I don't why you would think "it is not in the OED" mean "it is no anywhere". 1Z 08:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Banno's previous point is the reason why I preferred the formulation ["that which is"] instead of ["something"] for the lead paragraph. Nevertheless, I've refrained from tossing in the .02 because, frankly, it's pretty odd to see so much "diminishing-returns tinkering" going on with the lead. The way it is now seems (stylistically if not ontologically) quite passable. I'm still puzzled as to why these refinements and tinkering are not suitable for the various subsections of the article. dr.ef.tymac 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of simplifying the lead, when the lead states that "fact" is defined differently in different contexts. It creates a slightly contradictory impression. 1Z 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent, but there are difficulties that justify this compromise. As long as the lead is not blatantly incorrect, it seems entirely appropriate for it to consist of little more than a "birds eye view" definition of the concept, especially for an article such as this. It seems better to leave the detailed analysis to the various subsections of the article. dr.ef.tymac 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: This is just to note that the latest revision of the lead (as completed by User:Kenosis) looks (to me anyway) to be quite acceptable and even close to optimal for what this article calls for. Unless any further tinkering clearly and obviously addresses a compelling need for refinement, it's likely that any further changes to the lead will be contested as unwarranted and unhelpful. dr.ef.tymac 05:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is at least workable, in that it contains nothing that is objectionable and allows for some development. Strictly it should contain a comment on fact in law and fact in psychology, since these are also included in the article. Banno 05:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Putting this up for GA review?

What are the opinions on putting this article up for GA review. I know there are those out there who are not happy with aspects of this article, but it seems (to me anyway) that stabilizing the content is a useful goal to shoot for. GA review might help. Also, it seems there are only so many incremental gains that can be had by "tinkering at the edges". dr.ef.tymac 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think it is up to it, yet. Maybe after one more shake of the tree... Banno 02:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pragmatism

The section on pragmatism seems a bit odd, since it does not mention fact, but rather talks about truth. Banno 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On this occasion, James talks of true ideas in such a way as to mean only the same as"fact". Truth, fact, verification, verifiabilty, and validity, are all contingent upon such consideration of terminology and ontology. Pragmatism is a major philosophical doctrine, and has been for one hundred years, which must, and has, attempted to discern what is a "fact". — Newbyguesses - Talk 07:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then you should be able to re-write the section to reflect this, or find better quotes. As it stands, it looks like it should be in the article truth. Banno 10:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the offending section:

William James in 'Pragmatism's Conception of Truth', the sixth of a series of eight lectures he presented late in 1906 in Boston and again in early 1907 at Columbia University in New York, and which were soon published, in 1909, as Pragmatism:A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, expressed the idea that, to a pragmatist, "The possession of truth, so far from being here an end in itself, is only a preliminary means towards other vital satisfactions." (and) "The true thought is useful here because (the house) which is its object is useful to us. The practical value of true ideas is thus primarily derived from the practical importance of their objects to us." (and) "You can say of it (a truth) then either 'that it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is useful'." (and) "True is the name for whatever idea starts the verification-process, useful is the name for its completed function in experience". ^[3] (Pragmatism and Other Writings William James, edited by Giles Gunn, Penguin2000, page 89) James set out the pragmatic conception of truth, on this occasion, as "True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate and verify. False ideas are those that we can not." (page 88) Peirce, in one of many formulations of the pragmatic maxim, explained truth as no more than "the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate". ( How To Make Our Ideas Clear page 38, quoted in Pragmatism and Other Writings William James, the Introduction section by Giles Gunn, page xvi)

Now my objection is that Pragmatism is predominantly a theory of truth, not of fact. There are already more mature and comprehensive accounts in the article truth, as well as in the main article on pragmatism. In addition, including this section invites the inclusion of other theories of truth - as in the article truth. I don't see the point in reproducing that material here. Banno 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Banno, I do not know why you call this material offending. there is nothing offensive about it.Newbyguesses - Talk 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Banno, are you saying that if William James disagreed with Kant and Hegel (I wouldn't say that, its not up to me to say so), that therefore James is not allowed in an article on WP? If so, you are clearly wrong. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm saying that if we include a section on pragmatism that talks about truth rather than fact, we open the door for a re-hash of all the material presently in the section on substantive theories of truth. That is, if you include James, why not Kant, why not Wittgenstein or Austin or whoever. My preference is to keep this article about facts, rather than truth. But rather than argue between ourselves, let's cut a deal. If someone else re-inserts your material, I will not remove it again; on condition that you do not re-insert it. Sound reasonable? Banno 03:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Wittgenstein and Austin (yes, why not) then also the correspondence theory of truth and the slingshot argument, and, even, the Garbage Can Model? Would that suit you,Newbyguesses - Talk 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I will happily admit to having a dislike of the way in which pragmatism keeps raising its ugly head - a personal prejudice, probably the result of my encounter with the troll Jon Awbrey  (talk · contribs). Again, if anyone else chooses to re-insert this material, they are welcome, and I will not remove it. As for The Slingshot, that section needs work, but then so does the Awbredised main article, Slingshot argument. I plan to re-work it, and then return to the section in the present article. To repeat my main point: if we include the section on pragmatism, we should also include other major theories of truth - and that seems the wrong way to go with this article. Banno 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have to say that I agree with some of User:Banno's arguments, here. However, a personal prejudice against any well-known or notable philosophical doctrine surely cuts no ice. Anyway, if Fact were to be a really big article, it would explicate every one of those twenty dictionary meanings, and every philosophical view. Failing that, it needs a logical structure, not an ad-hoc accumulation of hobby-horses.Newbyguesses - Talk 07:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, New. I also freely admit to having been fairly harsh on your edits, considering that you are relatively new to the Wiki. This was not intentionally directed at you, since I did not check the authorship before removing the content. You are right that the article needs a logical structure, but first we might work out what it is we are structuring. I think we are still deciding on content, and changes to the structure will come later, if needed. Or do you have a radical change in structure in mind? Banno 07:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Banno, I dont have any radical change in mind, but I wish someone did. "Fact" as this , then "Fact" as that, "Fact" per xxxx, and etc. – and I definitely think a section on Skepticism is justified (in an article which considers "facts"), although there seems to be a paucity of useful, current, material on wikipedia concerning Skepticism. Facts, and skepticism as to what "facts" are — must be suitable here, or? no – Newbyguesses - Talk 08:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification – My objection was not to the material, (Slingshot), but to the placement of the material. Similarly, properly referenced material on James ought to be includable, if the placement of the material is fitting. That's what I mean, about structure, thanks,Newbyguesses - Talk 10:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then it might have been better to move it to the talk page pending discussion. Material that has been removed "to be worked on" has a way of disappearing altogether. 1Z 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I'd look more to the correspondence theorists G.E. Moore and Bertrand Russell for material on "fact" than to the pramatists. W. James and C.S. Peirce had a great deal to say about pragmatism as a broad view of truth, but little in the way of discussing the concept of "fact" as I recall. Not that I object to mentioning the pragmatists and giving the reader a guick perspective. ... Kenosis 12:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the issue that Banno so concisely brought out into the open - "2 = 2 is 4" may very well have been a fact before even there were humans to "know" it, (Platonism -correspondence theory), but others equally (some Skeptics, some pragmatists, some calling themselves realists, or idealists...) dispute that this is the only, or the most helpful formulation. Since WP is an encyclopedia, (not a lecture series, not a television show), we are discussing usage of the word fact in print or writings. What notably, has been said, by notable philosophers. My personal opinions are definitely not notable, and I would be seeking to meet WP:NPOV by bringing up the theories that have notably been presented, and notable challenges to those theories. Thus, a comprehensive discussion of "fact" logically entails some reference to the existence of the "Skeptical school". User:Kenosis's reminder of Russell, and GE Moore is also well-made, and that the importance of pragmatism (here) as a topic is subsumed or over-ridden to some extent by that of Skepticism, is also a point for me to consider.Newbyguesses - Talk 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact in Law

Added Globalisation tag - the material and citations are entirely US. What about other jurisdictions? Banno 06:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. and U.K. common law references are sufficiently authoritative to cover the basic common law principles. The citations are not exclusively U.S. (see e.g., footnote 33 Clarke, and footnote 31 Bishin both of which apply treatment of English law, some of it extending back several centuries).

Relatedly, just as with philosophy articles, English WP articles relating to law have pervasive and persistent quirks; one of them being the obvious emphasis on common law jurisdictions. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's an easily-recognized norm. It would be nice if English WP had more participation from lawyers in Syria, France, China, Mongolia and Somalia, but until that happens, it is not likely for this de-facto standard treatment to change any time soon.

Conclusion: I'm removing the Globalisation tag for the practical reasons enumerated above, but more importantly, because it doesn't address the specific issue. The references treat general common law principles acceptable as persuasive authority in many jurisdictions the world over ... parts of Canada, U.K., U.S.A., Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Burma, Ghana, Libera ... just to name a few.

A more appropriate tagging would be "this section emphasizes common law jurisdictions" ... but then such tagging would have to be applied to nearly every major article dealing with jurisprudence on the English WP. dr.ef.tymac 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps some additional wording is needed to identify this restriction on the content... Banno 21:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done: ... added a note that addresses the current emphasis of the section. This seems pretty reasonable. Moreover, if someone wants to come along at a later time and expand the section to cover Civil law (legal system), Sharia, Halakha or whatever else, this can be done easily with no disruption to the current flow of the subsection, and the note can then be removed. dr.ef.tymac 04:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A fine job! Well done, and thanks. Banno 04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Definitions

The first sentence reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia entry. Who did the "thorough review"? Banno 06:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any resource more "thorough" than the OED for treatment of standard English. Nevertheless, you're free to tweak the wording, and you have my full support if it represents an unambiguous and obvious improvement to the tone and language of the article. dr.ef.tymac 19:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, for your approval... Banno 22:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The general direction looks good, although there are some superfluous items in there. I'll address those at my next opportunity and, as always, you can follow-up with any comments or concerns. dr.ef.tymac 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not too bad. Not too keen on the re-inserted parenthetic comments; I'd rather not have any just as a stylistic point - I was taught that they indicate a poorly constructed paragraph. But both you and Kenosis seem to have no such foibles. Banno 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This statement is a known fact since it has been verified by observations, and communicated in words.

This phrase is unsourced, and unhelpful; it is at least arguable that 2+2=4 is a fact that is not known by observation. Therefore it is arguable that not all facts are known by observation. Put simply, we should not include a comment that contradicts the opinions of the likes of Kant and Hegel in the philosophy section. There are other opinions as to the facts, besides verificationism and pragmatism. Banno 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not all facts. Just this particular fact. It is a fact that Jupiter has been discovered to be the largest planet, and that a statement to that effect has been made. (see reference in article). Are you saying that Jupiter is the largest planet is a fact, but that no-one is allowed to say so? There is a difference between a 'fact' and a known fact. That is obvious. I am not disagreeing, or commenting on any way on Kant or Hegel, just saying that this statement is perfectly legitimate and helpful,Newbyguesses - Talk 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But here is the rub: the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet is quite distinct from the fact that Jupiter has been discovered to be the largest planet, which in turn is quite distinct from the fact that a statement to that effect has been made. Your text conflates them. Banno 23:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) That is, the implication of your text is the incorrect one that all known facts are verified by observaton. Banno 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Or: What is the point of including that line? Banno 23:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, Banno, that is the point of including that line. A "fact" is one thing and a statement of fact is a different thing, and a known fact is a different thing. If you would leave well enough alone, this may be explained in this article, which is meant to explicate, at the appropriate length fact. not merely, the correspondence theory of truth, as taught in schools. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat: the implication of your text is that all known facts are verified by observaton. Perhaps you might try re-wording your comment to say something a bit less POV? Banno 05:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This overall set of issues, I should remind the participants in this article, is in my experience a bit of a conceptual minefield similar to what we run into when dealing with "truth", "reality", "knowledge" and a few other things that are, so to speak, tough nuts to crack. I think we'll be well served if everybody keeps in perspective that there are such things as facts that exist independently of awareness or lack thereof by one or more human beings, and then there are conceptions or definitions of facts applied in various contexts. The reason that different fields have different definitions of fact is closely related to what the pragmatists, James, Peirce, Dewey, et al, have to say about truth and knowledge, which is that we learn what is truth (loosely, what is "fact") by applying the concepts of what is fact in practice and assessing the results of that application of the concepts of fact in some kind of practice. In law, for instance, fact is defined in certain ways, and not all things that are agreed to be called fact necessarily correspond to what a theoretical omniscient observer would observe. In science, there's no such thing as fact, technically speaking, as we limit ourselves to "observations", data points, summary data, etc., and "fact" is merely an informal statement or assertion that something exists and that we've described it accurately.

Each of these examples, and others, run into the same difficulty, which is fairly well described by Newbyguesses' statement that A "fact" is one thing and a "statement of fact" is a different thing, and a "known fact" is a different thing. But it's not the only way to describe the underlying "objective reality" vs. (pick one or more: belief/ opinion/ known fact/ belived to be fact/ thought to be possibly a fact/ statement of fact/ widely agreed to be fact/ fill in as may other possibilities as desired _____________). As easy as it was for Newbyguesses and me to state these issues as above, there is nevertheless a genuine problem inherent in how to define these aspects in the article. I think if we stick to what the reliable sources say about it and cite to them, describing each perspective, that the end result will be a more useful article. In Banno's defense here, one always runs into the correspondence issue when dealing with "fact" in any comprehensive way. IMO, there are ways to explain this all to readers, and I think the article already is a good part of the way towards accomplishing just that. ... Kenosis 14:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rhetorical use of the word "fact"

The following has been tagged for a few weeks. I'm removing it to talk for discussion:

Because more respect is generally accorded to facts than opinions, people may describe their opinions, based on personal experience, as "fact" even though they have not been evaluated or verified beyond the limits of individual perception. Such "facts" would be better described as beliefs, or strongly held convictions. Yet, a conviction such as that "Magic Johnson is the greatest ever basketball player", widely held among interested observers, [1] could potentially have as much validity in discussions of basketball, as the assertion that "pain should be avoided" has: it is a widely-held view, and credible. However, the assertion that "basketballs are round", which can be rigorously examined, (that is, measurements taken, rulebooks consulted, discussion take place and so forth) would seem to be a less contentious statement within the discussion of basketball than the statement referring to a particular player's level of skill, which requires, unavoidably, a value judgement. Nevertheless, it has been argued, by Kuhn amongst others, that there still exists an opportunity for scientific concepts, even perhaps as simple as roundness, to be reliant on unspoken considerations. For instance, how are measuring devices contrived, and how and when the procedure for measuring appropriately systematized. So, it is the case that matters of fact are to be, in general, considered in relation to the particular discussion concerning a particular field of enquiry, and that widely-held views which are credible in the eyes of interested and experienced parties may then come to constitute a consensus, and may prevail in discussion, whilst still subject to deprecation by certain unconvinced parties, being in a minority. A fact is only so as in that it is relevant to a particular discussion and particular facts are relevant in a particular discussion. Facts that are relevant in a discussion are the facts that have already been introduced to the discussion by an interested party. Facts that are relevant to a discussion may include facts, or crucial facts, [2] that are not known by any yet interested party, or have been misunderstood crucially by an interested party.

The intent here is perhaps not too bad. However the text is not referenced. Also the title is misleading, since the section is not about rhetoric, but bombast. It may be better to have a section contrasting facts with lies or even bullshit#"Bullshit" in philosophy. Banno 03:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Banno, you are right here. However, the material which was tagged was merely the first sentence, the rest has been added since, and so has not earned that opprobrium, although it may be as speculative,in your opinion, no -one has said so to date, therefore you are in error to assert as such. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

It remains unsubstantiated. The citations used are irrelevant to the thrust of the discussion. Therefore it needs re-working. So I removed it to talk. Incidentally, it was I who placed the tag[3], and I assure you I was referring to the whole section, not just the first line. that's why I chose that tag, rather than the fact tag. Banno 04:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Banno, you added the unreferenced tag on 8 June.[4]Material (admittedly, nothing specially well-written) has been added since then. Please get your "facts" straight, at least, once in a while,Newbyguesses - Talk 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your link is to a tag for the whole article, which I subsequently replaced with the dif I cited above, as explained in the edit description. I placed the tag to draw attention to the lack of citations. The new material added no relevant citations, so the tag remained. But hey, if it is that important to you, re-insert it, and see what others say. But make sure you replace the tag, else I will. Banno 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correspondence and the slingshot argument

Was there a specific aspect of this section that constituted grounds for removal? It seemed to be both relevant to the article and representative of a fundamental precept that is not otherwise plainly explained in this article. It also seemed to meet the basic readability requirements for a general audience. dr.ef.tymac 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for you to re-insert it. As I mentioned above, I do intend to re-work it after playing with the main article, but that may be a while coming. But the important part of that section is the argument itself, which if valid shows that there is exactly one fact - something that is quite relevant to the article, but which was apparently missed by New, since he removed it. If you do re-insert it, please include the whole text, or some rendition thereof. Banno 05:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I removed the material because I believed it to be poorly positioned in the article, not that it could not, if properly written, be useful. However, the ordering of material seems odd. Without an agreement as to the overall shape of the article (dreamer), stuff seems odd to those that do not originate it. No one owns wikipedia.Newbyguesses - Talk 05:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, with all respect to you, Newbyguesses, I've re-inserted the section, but as an invisible comment. Although I did not originate the content, the previous justification by Banno (I believe) does have substantial merit. Since there are other issues being hashed out here, I will refrain from the re-add for now, leaving it as a comment, subject to whatever improvements or adjustments and issue-resolution that may proceed. Respectfully, however, this section seems entirely appropriate to include in the article. dr.ef.tymac 05:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Newby, while no-one owns WP, you are supposed to discuss changes before making them.1Z 06:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

clarifying - the objection is not so much to that section (which can be improved with further writing), but to the wording used for its title, especially if it is to be the first (sub-) section heading. I dont know how to fix that, however, at this time, nor if others also find clumsy title as unhelpful as I do, so please then, as is suggested in comment by Dreftymac, and Banno, restore the material.

Please, is there any way to prevent the TOC from looking like a grab-bag, or shopping list, by coming up with interesting, grammatically correct titles for sections? The TOC, is actually tidier (currently), without both those clumsy and unenticing titles in it, and the stubs taken out of there were not well-written either, although as user:Peterjones points out (in another post, isn't it), losing bits of writing in the shuffle is each time it happens a shame, and I should bear that comment in mind, thanks,Newbyguesses - Talk 20:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the TOC. 1Z 21:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion then is add subsection (2.4) "The correspondence theory of truth" and subsection (2.5) "The slingshot argument", since there is nothing in the material yet that justifies, logically, the use of the word and in the previous title. "Rhetorical use..", is a crummy title, the material so-so. Pragmatism seems a resonable title, for a section, or subsection, and I believe the material, justified, since "Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality..." (Etymology). If all that material goes back, correctly placed and titled, we have progress. (Also, "Fact in Psych", a shame to lose that, but I cant add here, due to lack of research). Oh, and "Skepticism", (something should go in about) - who can find out enough about that topic to make usefull adds? I will try some research here, dont know what could be found though, perhaps a query to Refdesk is in order,Newbyguesses - Talk 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If the best way to progress the article is to re-add the correspondence-slingshot material in its current form (and title), then, especially if a linking sentence comes, that would suit me fine. I am happy that wiser heads should prevail here, and I havent looked at enough articles to be in a position to say what titles are going to work in the long run or dont work, or whether that's a big issue anyway; my suggestions are genuine though,Newbyguesses - Talk 09:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact in psych

I think this section should be removed as well. It contrasts fact with delusion, which seems odd. There is no mention of fact in the article delusion.A delusion is a false belief, not a false fact. Indeed, there is a large, if controversial, section at belief#Belief as a psychological theory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Banno (talk • contribs) 05:40, 23 June 2007

Although a section expressing the relationship between recall, cognitive function and the invididual notion of "fact" (I believe) deserves treatment in a WP article on the topic of "fact" ... the current stub doesnt quite seem to meet the mark. It doesn't look like anyone with the ability + inclination + energy to apply the requisite improvements to this subsection is going to step up any time soon. I agree this probably should get the axe (barring a substantial re-work). dr.ef.tymac 05:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, at this dif [5]. Banno 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's missing

There is perhaps a push to insert a series of philosophical theories n to the article. Correspondence, pragmatism and verificationism at present, but these will be followed by coherentism, constructivism, redundancy and so on, until the article is a reproduction of truth. I think that would be the wrong way to go.

It strikes me that the article would rather benefit from discussing a few of the things that contrast with facts.

We already have fact and value, and fact and counterfactual. What about the obvious one, fact and falsity? Shouldn't an article on fact talk about what it means to be wrong? Can you recognise a fact if you can't recognise a falsehood? This might also provide an opportunity to contrast verification with falsification.

Then there is fact and fiction. In fiction both the author and the reader conspire in the creation of a falsehood. A chance to work critical theory and literary theory into the article.

Then Fact and Lie. In this case, the author knows and cares about the truth, and is aware that his statements are false, but seeks to hide this from the reader.

Then Fact and Bullshit, in which the author does not care about the facts, but simply seeks to advance his own position. Banno 20:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this was one principle motivation for the "Basic definitions" (now etymology and usage) section. An article like this seems to call for several "anchors" to keep it from becoming an intellectual tarpit, or a shallow reproduction of "truth". If any of these can be substantiated as directly relevant to the principle concept ("fact") (through one or more credible citations [dictionary, treatise, desk reference, whatever]) then the notion of "what's missing" is definitive. Otherwise, we're just begging for more "bullshit" to be tossed into the mix by every subsequent contributor out there who has his or her own preferred pet viewpoints to share with the world.

Sure, all these matters are relevant in general discussion, but then so is the distinction between "fact" and "delusion" ... but then we don't see a psychology section in here anymore, do we? No. Why not? Because it was a good idea, and even the subject of legitimate research and scholarship; but not directly substantiated. Solid and precise substantiation should be the bare minimum prerequisite for non-trivial additions to this article (AFAIC).

Remember, this article had a *lot* of room for improvement prior to the recent laudable efforts by the now well-known usual suspects. Sure, there's still room for improvement, but it's been steadily moving forward. That's not very common for "basic concept" articles on WP. Let's make sure the improvements stay that way.

Don't get me wrong, all of the points you mention are good ones. All I'm saying is these should be (first and foremost) attributable to references. dr.ef.tymac 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Banno's resistance to the mention of the theories of truth, because they are relevant to the issue of "fact" in philosophy, in turn because both "truth" and "fact" run into the epistemological problems of justification, verfication, falsification, etc. It seems to me that if the content is kept to a brief statement and a link to other articles that deal with these topics in more detail, they are appropriate for the article. I do realize that the situation can be somewhat tautological, but the fact is (pardon me for that usage) that correspondence depends on construction, and also depends on agreements of how to define and verify fact, and the fact also is that pragmatists describe how both "truth" and "fact" are in fact (pardon me again) justified, or at least agreed upon in some practical context such as, e.g., legal proceedings, and in its far more informal usage in science. So, I think it is key only to keep the description of philosophical usage brief and in reasonable perspective with the issue of justification... Kenosis 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To an extent I agree; my point is more the stylistic one of avoiding too much repetition. Once we start down the road of adding theories of truth, the article will quickly become a reproduction of truth. Banno 23:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, and seems like an appropriate editorial strategy: Be brief and make appropriate reference to other articles. To that I'd only like to reiterate, ... and please provide a cite or two for any substantial proposed additions. dr.ef.tymac 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestive fact

I just encountered these two words used together and went on a search to find what they mean when used together like this (assuming that the sum is greater than the parts). I found many incidences of the two words being used together but no definition of them. One snippet in the search results said something like 'one suggestive fact is better than a few bushels of theory' which seems to be suggestive of the definition....

I am just wondering if the definition of suggestive fact could belong here and if there is a philosopher who could tackle its meaning? -- carol (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

neither of the external links at the bottom of the page contribute to the article and should be deleted, right? Michaelk08 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)