ForumGarden

What is your opinion about the similarities/differences between "fact" and "truth?"

Cannot the manipulation of facts result in an untruth?

What do you think?

Truth is a complete consistency with a set of facts. Any collection of facts is incomplete. As more facts are brought into consideration the previously conceived truth about them becomes untenable. A new updated truth can be found for which no inconsistency with the known facts exists and that, in turn, becomes the truth and the cycle begins anew, more facts either fit with the truth or break it.

Since nobody holds all the facts there is no way of determining any truth as absolute, it's always capable of being broken leaving a need to discover a new interpretation. The test for truth is consistency, the test for fact is that it can be reproduced anywhere by anyone.

spot;1128361 wrote: Truth is a complete consistency with a set of facts. Any collection of facts is incomplete. As more facts are brought into consideration the previously conceived truth about them becomes untenable. A new updated truth can be found for which no inconsistency with the known facts exists and that, in turn, becomes the truth and the cycle begins anew, more facts either fit with the truth or break it.

Since nobody holds all the facts there is no way of determining any truth as absolute, it's always capable of being broken leaving a need to discover a new interpretation. The test for truth is consistency, the test for fact is that it can be reproduced anywhere by anyone.


This is well stated.

What happens, however, when a fact is not accepted as true by all? I believe people can have different views as to what is fact and what is not.

Kindle;1128370 wrote: This is well stated.

What happens, however, when a fact is not accepted as true by all? I believe people can have different views as to what is fact and what is not.


Definitely. Some deluded people think an omnipotent omnipresent God exists, for example. To them, as a matter of faith, it's a fact. It leads them into interpreting the world in strange ways. The simplest thing is to restrict the word "fact" to the set of observations I described - "the test for fact is that it can be reproduced anywhere by anyone" - which brings the matter down to one of language. If "fact" is stretched to other unrepeatable personal observations then obviously "truth" has a different implication. So long as people agree the meaning of words there's no problem. If we decide to allow unrepeatable personal observations into the set of facts then the discussion is about a different set of concepts. All that's needed is an initial agreement on what the words mean.

Why would you want to include unrepeatable personal observations as facts?

I was thinking more along the lines of taking data, say from a census or information on a spreadsheet, and stating as fact that it means a certain thing. But, another person taking the same info and stating that it results in a different fact.

Same factual information. Different truth.

Kindle;1128398 wrote: I was thinking more along the lines of taking data, say from a census or information on a spreadsheet, and stating as fact that it means a certain thing. But, another person taking the same info and stating that it results in a different fact.

Same factual information. Different truth.


We're missing a word in our vocabulary here - deduction. The data are factual. The deductions made from them depend on logic. If the logic's faulty or all the available facts aren't taken into account - "truth is a complete consistency with a set of facts" - then the deductions can be inaccurate. Accurate deductions are facts in themselves, inaccurate deductions are false. You can only get contradictory "different facts" if all but one of them - or all of them - are false.

spot;1128406 wrote: We're missing a word in our vocabulary here - deduction. The data are factual. The deductions made from them depend on logic. If the logic's faulty or all the available facts aren't taken into account - "truth is a complete consistency with a set of facts" - then the deductions can be inaccurate. Accurate deductions are facts in themselves, inaccurate deductions are false. You can only get "different facts" if one or more of them are false.


This is true. Now, how do you resolve what is true when there is this dispute over seemingly accurate "facts"? Sometimes the results come from comparing apples to pears, instead of apples to apples. It may be the formula for figuring out how to arrive at the truth that is the problem.

Kindle;1128415 wrote: This is true. Now, how do you resolve what is true when there is this dispute over seemingly accurate "facts"? Sometimes the results come from comparing apples to pears, instead of apples to apples. It may be the formula for figuring out how to arrive at the truth that is the problem.


Logic is an exact mathematical science with no practical holes in it. What's capable of tripping it up is one person interpreting a word differently to another person. I think all these apparent contradictions are fixable once both parties agree on the meaning of the words used. All it takes is agreement on the vocabulary.

spot;1128417 wrote: Logic is an exact mathematical science with no practical holes in it. What's capable of tripping it up is one person interpreting a word differently to another person. I think all these apparent contradictions are fixable once both parties agree on the meaning of the words used. All it takes is agreement on the vocabulary.


I need to mull more on this and maybe I can come up with an example to test this on. I'm not quite satisfied with your answer, but I cannot think how to challenge your conculsion either.

More later.......................

spot;1128361 wrote: Truth is a complete consistency with a set of facts. Any collection of facts is incomplete. As more facts are brought into consideration the previously conceived truth about them becomes untenable. A new updated truth can be found for which no inconsistency with the known facts exists and that, in turn, becomes the truth and the cycle begins anew, more facts either fit with the truth or break it.

Since nobody holds all the facts there is no way of determining any truth as absolute, it's always capable of being broken leaving a need to discover a new interpretation. The test for truth is consistency, the test for fact is that it can be reproduced anywhere by anyone.





Is it just me ?

Nomad;1128461 wrote: Is it just me ?Probably so. Nothing there seems inconsistent. If you give a clue or three I'll try to expand it enough to make clearer sense.

How about "facts are eternal, truth is relative"?

Probably so. Nothing there seems inconsistent. If you give a clue or three I'll try to expand it enough to make clearer sense.

How about "facts are eternal, truth is relative"?


Look everyone !!!

Spock talked to me !!! :-6

I think all these apparent contradictions are fixable once both parties agree on the meaning of the words used. All it takes is agreement on the vocabulary. - Spot

After mulling this over, I think what you say is true for scientific and anyalitical things, but I don't think it is true for general conversations.

What made me uneasy (as I tried to fit this into my life) is that I personally, almost exclusively, deal only in conversational terms with others -- expressing opinions and thoughts. In this area, I believe, there is another factor. This type of communication requires a connection with another person and is not always bound by dictionary definitions. In scientific fields, it is what it is and it stands on its merits.

Communication is an art. It is very difficult, at times, to do, because words do not mean the same thing everywhere, despite dictionary definitions.

Ex: a bonnet in England is the hood of a car, while in the States, a bonnet is a hat

Ex: a soda in the northern US is a drink made with milk, while further south, a soda is what northerns call "pop".

Ex: With new technology and situations, new words are created to express it. They do not find their way into a dictionary until after they have been accepted and used in society.

If a person I am trying to communicate with does not understand the meaning of a word, or catch the particular definition of a word I am using, I fail to get my meaning across. That's a lose-lose situation.

So, short of me giving everyone an English lession before/during a conversation (and annoying the H--- out of them), I need to consider the person(s) I wish to communicate with. I can be smug and communicate above the understanding of this person(s), or I can fit in with the word usage understood by them.

Communication is the key, I think, for conversations. In scientific circles, exactness and specificness of words must be used.

Kindle;1128735 wrote: I think all these apparent contradictions are fixable once both parties agree on the meaning of the words used. All it takes is agreement on the vocabulary. - Spot



After mulling this over, I think what you say is true for scientific and anyalitical things, but I don't think it is true for general conversations.



What made me uneasy (as I tried to fit this into my life) is that I personally, almost exclusively, deal only in conversational terms with others -- expressing opinions and thoughts. In this area, I believe, there is another factor. This type of communication requires a connection with another person and is not always bound by dictionary definitions. In scientific fields, it is what it is and it stands on its merits.



Communication is an art. It is very difficult, at times, to do, because words do not mean the same thing everywhere, despite dictionary definitions.



Ex: a bonnet in England is the hood of a car, while in the States, a bonnet is a hat



Ex: a soda in the northern US is a drink made with milk, while further south, a soda is what northerns call "pop".



Ex: With new technology and situations, new words are created to express it. They do not find their way into a dictionary until after they have been accepted and used in society.



If a person I am trying to communicate with does not understand the meaning of a word, or catch the particular definition of a word I am using, I fail to get my meaning across. That's a lose-lose situation.



So, short of me giving everyone an English lession before/during a conversation (and annoying the H--- out of them), I need to consider the person(s) I wish to communicate with. I can be smug and communicate above the understanding of this person(s), or I can fit in with the word usage understood by them.



Communication is the key, I think, for conversations. In scientific circles, exactness and specificness of words must be used.


I started off a conversation with my boss yesterday with...

"do you mind if I approach you in an assertive manner while not appearing agressive and being mindful and respectful of your thoughts and feelings"

It was an experiment and there was a reason for me doing it. At first she appeared alarmed and she gulped probably in anticipation of a bomb but the conversation that followed was enlightening and extremely productive.

Communication is very difficult and can be twisted and meandering.

I like to get the barriers out in the open as opposed to working around them. If you face them head on theres nothing to hide from or avoid.

Kindle;1128735 wrote: I think all these apparent contradictions are fixable once both parties agree on the meaning of the words used. All it takes is agreement on the vocabulary. - Spot

After mulling this over, I think what you say is true for scientific and anyalitical things, but I don't think it is true for general conversations.

What made me uneasy (as I tried to fit this into my life) is that I personally, almost exclusively, deal only in conversational terms with others -- expressing opinions and thoughts. In this area, I believe, there is another factor. This type of communication requires a connection with another person and is not always bound by dictionary definitions. In scientific fields, it is what it is and it stands on its merits.

Communication is an art. It is very difficult, at times, to do, because words do not mean the same thing everywhere, despite dictionary definitions.

Ex: a bonnet in England is the hood of a car, while in the States, a bonnet is a hat

Ex: a soda in the northern US is a drink made with milk, while further south, a soda is what northerns call "pop".

Ex: With new technology and situations, new words are created to express it. They do not find their way into a dictionary until after they have been accepted and used in society.

If a person I am trying to communicate with does not understand the meaning of a word, or catch the particular definition of a word I am using, I fail to get my meaning across. That's a lose-lose situation.

So, short of me giving everyone an English lession before/during a conversation (and annoying the H--- out of them), I need to consider the person(s) I wish to communicate with. I can be smug and communicate above the understanding of this person(s), or I can fit in with the word usage understood by them.

Communication is the key, I think, for conversations. In scientific circles, exactness and specificness of words must be used.


All of which is absolutely identical to what you quoted in the first line, surely. What, other than vague feelings, persuades you it doesn't apply to all areas of communication?

I disagree with "words do not mean the same thing everywhere, despite dictionary definitions". It might take an explicit agreement to use one of several meanings but that, again, was a restriction I put earlier, that the meaning of words needed agreement before anything else happened. if there's a problem then in my opinion sorting out which words are being used differently is the first thing to look at. Logic is logic, deduction is deduction and fact is fact. All that's missing is an agreed common vocabulary.

Nomad;1128469 wrote: Look everyone !!!

Spock talked to me !!! :-6


And that is a fact.

Attached files

spot;1128877 wrote: All of which is absolutely identical to what you quoted in the first line, surely. What, other than vague feelings, persuades you it doesn't apply to all areas of communication?

I disagree with "words do not mean the same thing everywhere, despite dictionary definitions". It might take an explicit agreement to use one of several meanings but that, again, was a restriction I put earlier, that the meaning of words needed agreement before anything else happened. if there's a problem then in my opinion sorting out which words are being used differently is the first thing to look at. Logic is logic, deduction is deduction and fact is fact. All that's missing is an agreed common vocabulary.


This sounds like it should be true, but putting it into working conversational practice is not that easy. The test is to use it, not just verbalize what should be.

How many times do people say, it is logical to do thus and such. One's person's deduction of logic can be different from anothers. EX: US stimulus bill. Both sides are quoting facts. Each side is deducing the outcome. Each side says it is logical.

So, where is the flaw in this? The World According to Spot says it is in the meaning of words. Well, the dictionary says logic is the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. Deduction means the process of drawing a conclusion from something known or assumed, and fact is something known to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation.

I want to specifically put it into working practice, not just theorize. The more we delve into this, the more I think that there is truth in fact, but not all fact is truth.

Kindle;1130524 wrote: This sounds like it should be true, but putting it into working conversational practice is not that easy. The test is to use it, not just verbalize what should be.

How many times do people say, it is logical to do thus and such. One's person's deduction of logic can be different from anothers. EX: US stimulus bill. Both sides are quoting facts. Each side is deducing the outcome. Each side says it is logical.

So, where is the flaw in this? The World According to Spot says it is in the meaning of words. Well, the dictionary says logic is the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. Deduction means the process of drawing a conclusion from something known or assumed, and fact is something known to have happened; a truth known by actual experience or observation.

I want to specifically put it into working practice, not just theorize. The more we delve into this, the more I think that there is truth in fact, but not all fact is truth.We're going in circles. I did this in my first three sentences of my first post to the thread. Truth is a complete consistency with a set of facts. Any collection of facts is incomplete. As more facts are brought into consideration the previously conceived truth about them becomes untenable. "EX: US stimulus bill. Both sides are quoting facts. Each side is deducing the outcome. Each side says it is logical." -each side is working from a preselected biased tuned subset of the known facts and even if they weren't the full set of facts is far bigger than the known set. Your example is indeterminate because it's so complex a subject. The only thing you can do in that case is to attempt objectivity and scrupulous accuracy. It won't lead you to the truth but it will exclude the propaganda.

Okay, another example: There is (in the US court of law) the oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

However, the law does not allow it.

In court you may answer only what is asked and may not offer anything beyond that. Some things aren't even allowed to be asked.

In these cases, truth is given, but these facts are not the "complete" truth.

Kindle;1130560 wrote: Okay, another example: There is (in the US court of law) the oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

However, the law does not allow it.

In court you may answer only what is asked and may not offer anything beyond that. Some things aren't even allowed to be asked.

In these cases, truth is given, but these facts are not the "complete" truth.


Again we're in linguistic territory. In court you're asked to present facts. The demand of the oath is that each fact should be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", it's a demand that none of the facts you present should be either misleading or untrue. A question is put asking what the fact relating to the question is, and the person giving evidence has sworn to provide it accurately and without prevarication or equivocation.

What the law refuses to allow is a witness to offer deductions. The witness can be asked whether he'd made deductions at a particular time - that's a question of fact. He can't be asked what his opinion is. He can't be asked what his interpretation of the facts is. That's what we've been describing as "truth" in this thread. The theory is that by the end of the statements from the dock, and after the summing up and the judge's directions, the jury will be in possession of all the relevant facts and can deduce the truth and return a verdict.

Kindle;1128344 wrote: What is your opinion about the similarities/differences between "fact" and "truth?"

Cannot the manipulation of facts result in an untruth?

What do you think?


Would you not say the answer to this question is yes?

Kindle;1130576 wrote: Would you not say the answer to this question is yes?


If the collection of facts is incomplete then if they're a pre-selected subset they'll bias the answer. Even if they're not pre-selected they'll bias the answer if they were collected in a non-random way.

The only thing you can do in that case is to attempt objectivity by eliminating all the sources of bias, and by scrupulous accuracy in your use of logic. I keep trying to get across that truth in anything other than trivial cases is provisional and tentative. Facts are real and truthful, logic is real and truthful, deductions are real and truthful but the set of facts is always incomplete.

spot;1130581 wrote: If the collection of facts is incomplete then if they're a pre-selected subset they'll bias the answer. Even if they're not pre-selected they'll bias the answer if they were collected in a non-random way.

The only thing you can do in that case is to attempt objectivity by eliminating all the sources of bias, and by scrupulous accuracy in your use of logic. I keep trying to get across that truth in anything other than trivial cases is provisional and tentative. Facts are real and truthful, logic is real and truthful, deductions are real and truthful but the set of facts is always incomplete.


For the sake of discussion:

Are not some facts alway incomplete in some way. I'm thinking like DNA at crime scenes. Once they did not have the technology to capture that information, but now they can go back and do just that. The facts were complete as to the times, but in present day, when you go back, it longer is.........................

Kindle;1130603 wrote: For the sake of discussion:

Are not some facts alway incomplete in some way. I'm thinking like DNA at crime scenes. Once they did not have the technology to capture that information, but now they can go back and do just that. The facts were complete as to the times, but in present day, when you go back, it longer is.........................


We probably have different types of problem in mind. Most problem areas are incomplete. I tend to work within problem areas which can be complete, you've invariably talked about problem areas which are huge and obviously impossible to make complete. In your terms yes, some facts are always missing in some way. Im my terms it depends on what's being examined. Real-world doesn't have to mean incomplete facts, it just means the boundaries might be the wrong ones and the facts being examined might be the wrong type.

[QUOTE=spot;1130617]We probably have different types of problem in mind. Most problem areas are incomplete. I tend to work within problem areas which can be complete, you've invariably talked about problem areas which are huge and obviously impossible to make complete. In your terms yes, some facts are always missing in some way. Im my terms it depends on what's being examined. Real-world doesn't have to mean incomplete facts, it just means the boundaries might be the wrong ones and the facts being examined might be the wrong type.[/QUOTE]

This I can accept.

:-6