Misplaced Pages

Fact: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:42, 14 June 2007 view sourceNewbyguesses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,860 editsm The fact-value distinction: shorten sentence -still means the same← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:38, 19 August 2024 view source Anomalous+0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,232 edits External links: +Category:Knowledge 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Datum or structured component of reality}}
{{Wiktionary|fact}}
{{Other uses}}
:''For the trade organisation, see ]. For the Misplaced Pages Template, see ].''
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}
]


A '''fact''' is a ] ] about one or more aspects of a circumstance.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of fact {{!}} Dictionary.com |url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact |access-date=2023-05-17 |website=www.dictionary.com |language=en}}</ref> Standard ] are often used to ]. ] facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by ] or other means.
A '''fact''' is a truth<ref>Chamber's Dictionary, ninth edition</ref>, something that is the case, or that which can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. The precise definition of "fact" depends on the context, academic discipline and associated normative principles.


For example, "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a ] fact, and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an ] fact. Further, "] was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe ] facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of ] and of ] and ].
== Basic definitions ==
A thorough review of the definition and usage of the word "fact" in ] reveals a range of concepts and differing shades of meaning. In addition to the meanings discussed later in this article, the word "fact" is used to indicate:


Facts are different from ]s, ], ], and ].<ref>{{Citation |last1=Mulligan |first1=Kevin |title=Facts |date=2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/facts/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Winter 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |quote=Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations. |access-date=2022-11-18 |last2=Correia |first2=Fabrice}}</ref>
* a ''matter under discussion'' deemed to be true, or indicated as true, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue (e.g., "... the ''fact'' of the matter is ...")<ref>"Fact" (6c). OED_2d_Ed_1989</ref><ref>(See also "Matter" (2,6). Compact_OED)</ref>;


== Etymology and usage ==
* an ''allegation or stipulation'' of something that ''may or may not'' be a "true fact"<ref>"Fact" (5). OED_2d_Ed_1989</ref> (e.g., "Lightning never strikes twice and other false facts", "the author's facts are not trustworthy")<ref>According to the ''American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'', "Fact has a long history of usage in the sense 'allegation'" AHD_4th_Ed</ref>;
The word ''fact'' derives from the Latin ''factum''. It was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed"{{spaced en dash}}a meaning now obsolete.<ref name="Exp. Dan">"Fact" (1a). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989 Joye ''Exp. Dan.'' xi. Z vij b, ''Let emprours and kinges know this godly kynges fact. 1545''(but note the conventional uses: ''after the fact'' and ''before the fact'')</ref> The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the mid-16th century.<ref name="Exp. Dan"/>


Barbara J. Shapiro wrote in her book ''A Culture of Fact'' how the concept of a fact evolved, starting within the English legal tradition of the 16th century.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shapiro |first=Barbara J. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41606276 |title=A culture of fact : England, 1550-1720 |date=2000 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=0-8014-3686-9 |location=Ithaca |language=en |oclc=41606276}}</ref>
* ''existence'', or something that is known or demonstrated to have existed, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions that may be derived from such existence<ref>"Fact" (4a) OED_2d_Ed_1989</ref> (e.g., "... not history, nor fact, but imagination ..."); and


In 1870, ] described in his book "The Fixation of Belief" four methods which people use to decide what they should believe: tenacity, method of authority, a priori and scientific method.<ref>Charles Sanders Peirce. The Fixation of Belief Paperback – July 26, 2017 {{ISBN|1973922991}}, 38 pp</ref>
* a ''process of evaluation'', (through review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise) as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation<ref>"Fact" (6a). OED_2d_Ed_1989</ref>; this indication is also reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission")<ref>"Fact" (8). OED_2d_Ed_1989</ref>.


The term ''fact'' also indicates a ''matter under discussion'' deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "...&nbsp;the ''fact'' of the matter is ...").<ref>"Fact" (6c). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref><ref>(See also "Matter" (2,6). Compact_Oxford English Dictionary)</ref>
==Fact in philosophy==


Alternatively, ''fact'' may also indicate an ] or ] of something that may or may not be a ''true fact'',<ref>"Fact" (5). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref> (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English according to the ''American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.<ref>''American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language''_4th_Ed.</ref>'' The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' dates this use to 1729.''{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}''
In ], the concept of fact relates to fundamental issues and questions of ] and ]. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, ie. the ] reported by a ] ].<ref>"A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true". -- ''Fact'' in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy</ref><ref>"A fact, it might be said, is a state of affairs that is the case or obtains" -- </ref>


''Fact'' may also indicate findings derived through a ''process of evaluation'', including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.<ref>"Fact" (6a). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref> This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a ] commission").<ref>"Fact" (8). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref>
The proper analysis and interpretation of fact is central to various theoretic paradigms in philosophy. Questions of ] and ] are closely associated with questions of fact.<ref>(Bhaskar 1989 ''infra'') {{cite book
| title = Faking It: Mock-Documentary and the Subversion of Factuality
| first = Jane
| last = Roscoe
| publisher = Manchester University Press
| year = 2002
| id = ISBN 0719056411
}}(Quoting Bhaskar (1989) et. al.) </ref> Speaking for the objective approach, British ] ] asserts that "... facts are real and we are not free to invent them, but they belong to the realm of of epistemology and are discovered through theoretical paradigms and are historically specific social realities."<ref>] (1989)''Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy''</ref>


Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. ] wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."<ref>Roger Bacon, translated by Robert Burke ''Opus Majus'', Book I, Chapter 2.</ref>
The ] holds that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact.<ref name="Engel000">{{cite book

==In philosophy==

In ], the concept ''fact'' is considered in the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, called ] and ], which studies concepts such as ], ], ], and ]. Questions of ] and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A fact can be defined as something that is the case, in other words, a ].<ref>"A fact, it might be said, is a state of affairs that is the case or obtains." – </ref><ref>Wittgenstein, ''],'' Proposition 2: What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.</ref>

Facts may be understood as ], which makes a true sentence true: "A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true."<ref name="ocp">Oxford Companion to Philosophy</ref> Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is ''about'' the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.<ref>Alex Oliver, ''Fact'', in {{cite book
| title = Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
| first = Edward
| last = Craig
| publisher = Routledge, Oxford
| year = 2005
| isbn = 0-415-32495-5
}}</ref>

===Correspondence and the slingshot argument===

] version of the ] explains that what makes a sentence true is that it ''corresponds'' to a fact.<ref>{{cite book
| title = Truth | title = Truth
| first = Pascal | first = Pascal
| last = Engel | last = Engel
| publisher = McGill-Queen's Press- MQUP | publisher = McGill-Queen's Press MQUP
| year = 2002 | year = 2002
| id = ISBN 0773524622 | isbn = 0-7735-2462-2
}}</ref> This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The ] claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing, the ] ''true''. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then one arrives at the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact: ''the truth''.<ref>The argument is presented in many places, but see for example ], ''Truth and Meaning'', in {{cite book
| title = Truth and Interpretation
| first = Donald
| last = Davidson
| publisher = Clarendon Press, Oxford
| year = 1984
| isbn = 0-19-824617-X
}}</ref> }}</ref>
Similarly, ] asserts that all knowledge is based on logical inference which must be grounded in observable facts.<ref>(Engel 2002)</ref>


===Compound facts=== ===Compound facts===


Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an ] composed of a complex of ] and ] or ]s.<ref>"Facts possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations" Oxford Companion to Philosophy</ref>. For example, the fact described by the true statement "] is the ] of ]" implies that: Any non-trivial true statement about ] is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of ] and ] or ]. Facts "possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations".<ref name="ocp"/> For example, the fact described by the true statement "Paris is the capital city of France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, there is such a place as France, there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a ''place'' or a ''government'', and so on. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact, that Paris is the capital of France.
*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.<ref>''Fact'', in ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Ted Honderich, editor. (Oxford, 1995) {{ISBN|0-19-866132-0}}</ref>
=== Negative, modal and disjunctive facts===


===Fact–value distinction===
Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of ], ], ], or ] facts.<ref>"Fact", in ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Ted Honderich, editor. (Oxford, 1995) ISBN 0-19-866132-0</ref>
{{main|Fact–value distinction}}
Moral philosophers since ] have debated whether ] are objective, and thus factual. In '']'' Hume pointed out there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ''ought'' to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what ''is'' the case. This is called the ]. Those who insist there is a logical gulf between ], such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values (e.g., "it is good to give food to hungry people") from facts (e.g., "people will die if they can't eat"), include ], who called attempting to do so the ].


===The fact-value distinction=== ===Factual–counterfactual distinction===
{{main|Counterfactual conditional}}


]—what has occurred—can also be contrasted with counterfactuality: what ''might have'' occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or ] is a conditional (or "if–then") statement indicating what ''would be'' the case if events had been other than they were. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome." This contrasts with an indicative conditional, which indicates what ''is'' (in fact) the case if its antecedent ''is'' (in fact) true—for example, "If you drink this, it will make you well." Such sentences are important to ], especially since the development of ] semantics.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}
{{main|fact-value distinction}}


==In mathematics==
] since ] have debated whether values are ], and thus factual. In '']'' Hume pointed out that there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ''ought'' to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what ''is'' the case. Those who insist that there is a logical gulf between ], such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values from facts, include ], who called attempting to do so the ].


In mathematics, a ''fact'' is a statement (called a ]) that can be proven by logical argument from certain ]s and ]s.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}
===The factual-counterfactual distinction===
{{main|counterfactual conditional}}


==In science==
Factuality &mdash; what has occurred &mdash; can also be contrasted with counterfactuality &mdash;
{{further|Scientific method|Philosophy of science}}
what ''might have'' occurred, but did not. A ] or ] conditional is a ] indicating what ''would be'' the case if events had been other than they actually are. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome". This is to be contrasted with an ], which indicates what ''is'' (in fact) the case if its antecedent ''is'' (in fact) true &mdash; for example, "if you drink this, it will make you well".


The definition of a ''scientific fact'' is different from the definition of fact, as it implies ]. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called ]. These are central to building ]. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the ], and the scope and validity of ].
Such sentences are important to ], especially since the development of ] semantics.


In the most basic sense, a ''scientific fact'' is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a '']'' or '']'', which is intended to explain or interpret facts.<ref name="Gower">{{Cite book |last=Gower |first=Barry |title=Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=0-415-12282-1}}</ref>
==Fact in science==


Various ] have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Philosophers and scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) ''states of affairs'' in the external world and 2) ''assertions'' of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.<ref name="Ravetz000">{{cite book
{{see|scientific method|philosophy of science}}
| title = Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems
| first = Jerome Raymond
| last = Ravetz
| publisher = Transaction Publishers
| year = 1996
| isbn = 1-56000-851-2
}}</ref>

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have written about numerous questions and theories that arise in the attempt to clarify the fundamental nature of scientific fact.<ref name="Gower"/> Pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:
* the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;<ref name="Ravetz000"/>{{rp|182 fn. 1}}
* whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;<ref name="Ravetz000"/>{{rp|185}}<ref name="Gower"/>{{rp|138}}
* to what extent "facts" are influenced by the mere act of observation;<ref name="Gower"/>{{rp|138}} and
* to what extent factual conclusions are influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.<ref name="Gower"/>{{rp|7}}

Consistent with the idea of ], some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. ] points out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of other theories. For example, the age of ] is based on ], which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a ] rather than a ]. Similarly, ] is credited with the methodological position known as ], which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined, by the means and assumptions used to measure them.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

=== The scientific method ===
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.<ref name="Ravetz000"/>{{rp|181 ff}} Scientific facts are generally believed independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers agree on the outcome.<ref name="The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine">Cassell, Eric J. '']''. Retrieved 16 May 2007.</ref>
In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote ''factual accuracy'' among other interests in scientific study.<ref name="Ravetz000"/>

== In history ==
{{further|Historiography}}

A common rhetorical cliché states, "]". This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

] in his 1961 volume '']'' argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical ] ] and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean", of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different biases of fact finding – all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past – and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. The set of highlighted historical facts, and their interpretations, therefore changes over time, and reflect present consensuses.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}


==In law==
In ] a ''fact'' is an ] and ] ], in contrast with a '']'', which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. 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.<ref name="The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine">Cassell, Eric J. '']''. Retrieved ] ].</ref> Some scholars in the ] question whether scientific facts are truly objective or are always "theory-laden" to some degree. ] and others as well pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g. age of ] is based on ] which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a ] rather than a ]). This issue is tagged "the ] of observation".
{{further|Evidence (law)|Trier of fact}}
This section of the article emphasizes common law jurisprudence as primarily represented in Anglo-American–based legal tradition. Nevertheless, the principles described herein have analogous treatment in other legal systems such as ] systems as well.


In most ] jurisdictions, the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of ], and is supported by several well-established standards.<ref name="Estrich000">{{cite book
==Fact in law==
The general concept and analysis of fact in ] and ] is supported by several well-established standards.<ref name="Estrich000">{{cite book
| title = American Jurisprudence: A Comprehensive Text Statement of American Case Law | title = American Jurisprudence: A Comprehensive Text Statement of American Case Law
| first = Willis Albert | first = Willis Albert
Line 81: Line 123:
| publisher = Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company | publisher = Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company
| year = 1952 | year = 1952
}}</ref><ref name="Elkouri000">{{cite book
| id =
}}</ref><ref name="Elkouri000">{{cite book
| title = How Arbitration Works | title = How Arbitration Works
| first = Frank | first = Frank
Line 88: Line 129:
| publisher = BNA Books | publisher = BNA Books
| year = 2003 | year = 2003
| isbn = 1-57018-335-X|page=305}}</ref> Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.
| id = ISBN 157018335X
}}p. 305</ref> Matters of fact have various formal definitions under ] jurisdictions.


These include: These include:


* an element required in legal ]s to demonstrate a ];<ref name="Bishin000">{{cite book * an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a ];<ref name="Bishin000">{{cite book
| title = Law Language and Ethics: An Introduction to Law and Legal Method | title = Law Language and Ethics: An Introduction to Law and Legal Method
| url = https://archive.org/details/lawlanguageethic00bish
| first = William R.
| url-access = registration
| first = William R.
| last = Bishin | last = Bishin
| publisher = Foundation Press | publisher = Foundation Press
| year = 1972 | year = 1972
| id = Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Mar 24, 2006 | id = Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 2006|page=277| isbn = 9780882773797
}}p. 277</ref><ref name="Yale001">{{cite book }}</ref><ref name="Yale001">{{cite book
| title = The Yale Law Journal: Volume 7 | title = The Yale Law Journal: Volume 7
| url = https://archive.org/details/jstor-783085
| publisher = Yale Law Journal Co | publisher = Yale Law Journal Co
| year = 1898 | year = 1898
}}</ref> }}</ref>


* the determinations of the ] after evaluating admissible evidence produced in a trial or hearing;<ref>''Per'' Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, ''Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co''., 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.</ref> * the determinations of the ] after evaluating ] produced in a trial or hearing;<ref>''Per'' Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, ''Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co'', 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.</ref>
* a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an ];<ref name="Houston000">{{cite book

* a potential ground of ] forwarded on ] in an ];<ref name="Houston000">{{cite book
| title = The American and English Encyclopedia of Law | title = The American and English Encyclopedia of Law
| url = https://archive.org/details/americanandengl05garlgoog
| first = John Houston | first = John Houston
| last = Merrill | last = Merrill
| publisher = E. Thompson | publisher = E. Thompson
| year = 1895 | year = 1895
| id = Original from Harvard University Digitized Apr 26, 2007 | id = Original from Harvard University Digitized 2007
}}</ref> and }}</ref> and
* any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a ] has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.<ref name="Bennett000">{{cite book

| title = Criminal Investigation
* any of ] by official authority to establish that a ] has been perpetrated.<ref name="Bennett000">{{cite book
| title = Criminal Investigation
| first = Wayne W. | first = Wayne W.
| last = Bennett | last = Bennett
| publisher = Thomson Wadsworth | publisher = Thomson Wadsworth
| year = 2003 | year = 2003
| id = ISBN 0534615244 | isbn = 0-534-61524-4
}}</ref> }}</ref>


==Fact in psychology== === Legal pleadings ===
{{sect-stub}} {{main|Pleading}}
A party (e.g., ]) to a civil suit generally must clearly state the relevant allegations of fact that form the basis of a ]. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies, depending on the rules of civil procedure and jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.<ref>Roy W. McDonald, "Alternative Pleading in the United States". ''Columbia Law Review'', Vol. 52, No. 4 (Apr. 1952), pp. 443–478</ref> In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that when considered together may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This seemingly logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies such as '']'' that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts and ruling of the court.<ref>McDonald 1952</ref>
Matters of fact have application in ]. In this context, "fact" is the personal awareness that proceeds from the routine operation of healthy ]. Unhealthy or maladaptive cognitive function is considered the basis of ], characterized by the retention or awareness of "facts" that do not coincide with objective "states of affairs." In this context the term "fact" is more technically described as "false belief."

Retention and internal representation of fact is the role of ], which includes both ] and ].

==Rhetorical use of the word "fact"==
{{Unreferencedsection|date=June 2007}}
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 '']s'', or strongly held convictions.


==See also== ==See also==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}


== External links ==
==Notes and references==
{{Wikiversity|Facing Facts}}
{{reflist|2}}
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{SEP|facts|Facts}}


{{Philosophy of science}}
]
{{Philosophical logic}}
{{Portal bar|Philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ]
] ]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 02:38, 19 August 2024

Datum or structured component of reality For other uses, see Fact (disambiguation).

Non-fiction books at a Danish library, shelves displaying the word Fakta, Danish for "Facts"

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example, "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and "The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.

Facts are different from inferences, theories, values, and objects.

Etymology and usage

The word fact derives from the Latin factum. It was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed" – a meaning now obsolete. The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the mid-16th century.

Barbara J. Shapiro wrote in her book A Culture of Fact how the concept of a fact evolved, starting within the English legal tradition of the 16th century.

In 1870, Charles Sanders Peirce described in his book "The Fixation of Belief" four methods which people use to decide what they should believe: tenacity, method of authority, a priori and scientific method.

The term fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").

Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact, (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. The Oxford English Dictionary dates this use to 1729.

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."

In philosophy

In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, called epistemology and ontology, which studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A fact can be defined as something that is the case, in other words, a state of affairs.

Facts may be understood as information, which makes a true sentence true: "A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true." Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

Correspondence and the slingshot argument

Pascal Engel's version of the correspondence theory of truth explains that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact. This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing, the truth value true. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then one arrives at the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact: the truth.

Compound facts

Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations. Facts "possess internal structure, being complexes 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 is such a place as Paris, there is such a place as France, there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a place or a government, and so on. The verifiable accuracy 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.

Fact–value distinction

Main article: Fact–value distinction

Moral philosophers since David Hume have debated whether values are objective, and thus factual. In A Treatise of Human Nature Hume pointed out there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ought to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what is the case. This is called the is–ought distinction. Those who insist there is a logical gulf between facts and values, such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values (e.g., "it is good to give food to hungry people") from facts (e.g., "people will die if they can't eat"), include G. E. Moore, who called attempting to do so the naturalistic fallacy.

Factual–counterfactual distinction

Main article: Counterfactual conditional

Factuality—what has occurred—can also be contrasted with counterfactuality: what might have occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or subjunctive conditional is a conditional (or "if–then") statement indicating what would be the case if events had been other than they were. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome." This contrasts with an indicative conditional, which indicates what is (in fact) the case if its antecedent is (in fact) true—for example, "If you drink this, it will make you well." Such sentences are important to modal logic, especially since the development of possible world semantics.

In mathematics

In mathematics, a fact is a statement (called a theorem) that can be proven by logical argument from certain axioms and definitions.

In science

Further information: Scientific method and Philosophy of science

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence. These are central to building scientific theories. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the scientific method, and the scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Philosophers and scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) states of affairs in the external world and 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have written about numerous questions and theories that arise in the attempt to clarify the fundamental nature of scientific fact. Pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

  • the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;
  • whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;
  • to what extent "facts" are influenced by the mere act of observation; and
  • to what extent factual conclusions are influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.

Consistent with the idea of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn points out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of other theories. For example, the age of fossils is based on radiometric dating, which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process. Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined, by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

The scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method. Scientific facts are generally believed independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers agree on the outcome. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy among other interests in scientific study.

In history

Further information: Historiography

A common rhetorical cliché states, "History is written by the winners". This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.

E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume What is History? argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean", of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different biases of fact finding – all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past – and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. The set of highlighted historical facts, and their interpretations, therefore changes over time, and reflect present consensuses.

In law

Further information: Evidence (law) and Trier of fact

This section of the article emphasizes common law jurisprudence as primarily represented in Anglo-American–based legal tradition. Nevertheless, the principles described herein have analogous treatment in other legal systems such as civil law systems as well.

In most common law jurisdictions, the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of jurisprudence, and is supported by several well-established standards. Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.

These include:

  • the determinations of the finder of fact after evaluating admissible evidence produced in a trial or hearing;
  • a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an appellate court; and
  • any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.

Legal pleadings

Main article: Pleading

A party (e.g., plaintiff) to a civil suit generally must clearly state the relevant allegations of fact that form the basis of a claim. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies, depending on the rules of civil procedure and jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading. In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that when considered together may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This seemingly logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies such as res judicata that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts and ruling of the court.

See also

References

  1. "Definition of fact | Dictionary.com". www.dictionary.com. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
  2. Mulligan, Kevin; Correia, Fabrice (2021), "Facts", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 18 November 2022, Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations.
  3. ^ "Fact" (1a). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989 Joye Exp. Dan. xi. Z vij b, Let emprours and kinges know this godly kynges fact. 1545(but note the conventional uses: after the fact and before the fact)
  4. Shapiro, Barbara J. (2000). A culture of fact : England, 1550-1720. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0-8014-3686-9. OCLC 41606276.
  5. Charles Sanders Peirce. The Fixation of Belief Paperback – July 26, 2017 ISBN 1973922991, 38 pp
  6. "Fact" (6c). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989
  7. (See also "Matter" (2,6). Compact_Oxford English Dictionary)
  8. "Fact" (5). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989
  9. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_4th_Ed.
  10. "Fact" (6a). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989
  11. "Fact" (8). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989
  12. Roger Bacon, translated by Robert Burke Opus Majus, Book I, Chapter 2.
  13. "A fact, it might be said, is a state of affairs that is the case or obtains." – Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. States of Affairs
  14. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition 2: What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.
  15. ^ Oxford Companion to Philosophy
  16. Alex Oliver, Fact, in Craig, Edward (2005). Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge, Oxford. ISBN 0-415-32495-5.
  17. Engel, Pascal (2002). Truth. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP. ISBN 0-7735-2462-2.
  18. The argument is presented in many places, but see for example Davidson, Truth and Meaning, in Davidson, Donald (1984). Truth and Interpretation. Clarendon Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-824617-X.
  19. Fact, in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Ted Honderich, editor. (Oxford, 1995) ISBN 0-19-866132-0
  20. ^ Gower, Barry (1997). Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-12282-1.
  21. ^ Ravetz, Jerome Raymond (1996). Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-56000-851-2.
  22. Cassell, Eric J. The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 May 2007.
  23. Estrich, Willis Albert (1952). American Jurisprudence: A Comprehensive Text Statement of American Case Law. Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company.
  24. Elkouri, Frank (2003). How Arbitration Works. BNA Books. p. 305. ISBN 1-57018-335-X.
  25. Bishin, William R. (1972). Law Language and Ethics: An Introduction to Law and Legal Method. Foundation Press. p. 277. ISBN 9780882773797. Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 2006.
  26. The Yale Law Journal: Volume 7. Yale Law Journal Co. 1898.
  27. Per Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co, 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.
  28. Merrill, John Houston (1895). The American and English Encyclopedia of Law. E. Thompson. Original from Harvard University Digitized 2007.
  29. Bennett, Wayne W. (2003). Criminal Investigation. Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 0-534-61524-4.
  30. Roy W. McDonald, "Alternative Pleading in the United States". Columbia Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Apr. 1952), pp. 443–478
  31. McDonald 1952

External links

Philosophy of science
Concepts
Theories
Philosophy of...
Related topics
Philosophers of science
Precursors
  • Category
  • Philosophy portal
  • icon Science portal
  • Philosophical logic
    Critical thinking and
    informal logic
    Theories of deduction
    Portal: Categories: