The question of "fact" does not have a simple answer. Indeed, philosophers and logicians have struggled for centuries to determine what is and what is not a "fact." Are facts true? Can facts be false? How do we determine the truth value of any statement?
Propositional logic, for example, proposes a model of what state of affairs must obtain for an expression to be true, and the relation between the model and the expression that is mapped onto it is independent of individual interpretation because it is a logical relation that must necessarily be true, but only under the given conditions.
Suppose we are watching a Star Trek movie, and a character says "The warp drive is down, Captain!" Is this a factual, true statement, even though we know that warp drives do not exist? Or do we accept the statement as true because the idea of warp drives exists or because they exist within the context of the movie? Suddenly things are complicated. Well, perhaps we can turn to mathematics to determine what is a fact. Aren't there a priori truths that are facts, such as 2 + 3 = 5? Yes, but note that this mathematical statement is a fact only in the realm of rational numbers.
Considering the difficulty that serious thinkers from Aristotle to Frege and Russell had in determining the nature of facts and truth, it strikes me as irrational for journalists to claim that they have some unique ability to determine what is and what is not a fact. Perhaps this reality sheds some light on why various polls now report that Americans distrust journalists almost as much as they distrust politicians . . . but of course these polls will be considered factual and true only by those who want to believe them. Without actually conducting such a poll ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether such polls even exist, for they may be as fictional as warp drives in a movie.
Dear Dr. Rahimi,
A fact is not a fact when the delivery of this fact is meant to appeal to emotions, not to disseminate the truth or the content message. I might be wrong, but an example might be the use of ad haminum to frame an argument. The following example is from an article in The Economist (online):
"Donald Trump, the Republican presidential hopeful, claimed recently that President Barack Obama “is the founder” of Islamic State and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, the “co-founder”, even some of his supporters were perplexed."
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and
Well, just an opinion I'd like to share.
Sincerely,
Cameen
The question of "fact" does not have a simple answer. Indeed, philosophers and logicians have struggled for centuries to determine what is and what is not a "fact." Are facts true? Can facts be false? How do we determine the truth value of any statement?
Propositional logic, for example, proposes a model of what state of affairs must obtain for an expression to be true, and the relation between the model and the expression that is mapped onto it is independent of individual interpretation because it is a logical relation that must necessarily be true, but only under the given conditions.
Suppose we are watching a Star Trek movie, and a character says "The warp drive is down, Captain!" Is this a factual, true statement, even though we know that warp drives do not exist? Or do we accept the statement as true because the idea of warp drives exists or because they exist within the context of the movie? Suddenly things are complicated. Well, perhaps we can turn to mathematics to determine what is a fact. Aren't there a priori truths that are facts, such as 2 + 3 = 5? Yes, but note that this mathematical statement is a fact only in the realm of rational numbers.
Considering the difficulty that serious thinkers from Aristotle to Frege and Russell had in determining the nature of facts and truth, it strikes me as irrational for journalists to claim that they have some unique ability to determine what is and what is not a fact. Perhaps this reality sheds some light on why various polls now report that Americans distrust journalists almost as much as they distrust politicians . . . but of course these polls will be considered factual and true only by those who want to believe them. Without actually conducting such a poll ourselves, we have no way of knowing whether such polls even exist, for they may be as fictional as warp drives in a movie.
What are facts today might be a fallacy in the next. for instance, it was a fact that the world was once flat right? So facts are mere human contraption of surety about an event, which is further subject to scrutiny. For instance, in the court of law, what is required are facts (evidence) not truth. It is a contentious and a no-win situation. However, It is dependent on the angle you look at it. Today they say America is the most powerful country yet most fearful in dealings with others. Power and fear are two extreme but this nation exude both. Truth vilifies facts and post truth only comes after death.
Can there be facts without collective believe?
What is a fact more than a connective believe?
Every fact needs to be determined.
How can you do that?
By language, by measuring, by common sense, by reputation, by logic, may be by authority?
There are no obvious facts in the world
- It's the opposite: there is a world because we are able to think the obvious.
(psychiatric patients can loose these abilities and therefore loose contact with the obvious facts others agree in common)
The first alliance with the factual world is out body.
For the body facts are indisputable.
The body is her own fact.
- And therefore the experience of our physical being is the doorway to all facts.
best wishes,
Willy
Willy, I not able to follow your reasoning. Can there be facts without collective belief? Sure. Even if no people were alive, there are certain a priori truths that do not rely on collective belief. In the realm of rational numbers, for example, 2 + 3 will equal 5 regardless of what people believe. Likewise, collective belief is essentially irrelevant to the nature of facts. A majority of people in Japan believe in ghosts, but that does not make them facts. Countless Americans believe that the earth is about 6,900 years old. Also not a fact. As for obvious facts, I would argue that there are plenty, as indicated in your statement that "For the body facts are indisputable." As Shakespeare wrote, are we not "warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer . . . ? If you prick us, do we not bleed?" These are indeed obvious facts.
Hello James , as you appropriately stated mass hysteria and mass superstition can not be equated with facts.the question which arises now :
Platitudinal axiomatic statements state the obvious reflective of facts ?
Ali, I would argue that, once again, the answer is not simple. In some cases axioms do, indeed, state a fact because they often involve a logical implicature. Consider Benjamin Franklin's "A stitch in time saves nine." In other cases, however, they may not be factual or demonstrably a fact, even though they sound logical and true. Consider that some books on set theory hold as axiomatic that "An infinite set exists." Well, as far as I know--not being a mathematician I could be profoundly wrong--we have no way of determining whether that axiom is true or false, thus no way of know whether it is a "fact." It's just that by assuming it to be true allows for mathematical operations that otherwise would founder.
Finally, I would suggest that we do not use platitudes as belief warrants. Rather we use them as a means of socializing and inculturating to a norm.
It ought to be better to narrow this question
for example:
- What is a fact in politics?
- What is an historical fact?
- What is an ethical fact?
- What is a scientific fact?
- What is a mathematical fact?
-What is a linguistic fact?
...etc
You want a factual example in mathematics?
- take a restaurant bill.
it states clearly you’ve got to pay -lets say- 35 $:
This a “simple fact” right?
Well it matches what you ordered and got and ate - so factually this must be right.
Otherwise said :
this bill could also be wrong - we‘ve got a solid base here to prove this: mathematics.
The counting must be right because of the mathematic rules we agree upon
So math tells us here what is right from wrong.
or: - Math reduces fact to "right" or "wrong".
But here comes the tricky bit:
- Did the quality of the food match your expectations?
Because food also is a fact - but here a mathematical “fact” is linked to an other :
“price quality ratio”:
Here the discussion becomes more difficult
it’s not so simple anymore distinguishing the factual from the subjective.
Did I like the food or not? How to measure that?
is factual the same as objective?
What is objective?
When several people see the same thing can they call it objective?
(or taste the same wine)
What is “the same”?
“the same” can only be in an idea according to René Descartes (Les Méditations)
Take a little bit of wax for example - René said - and hold it by the fire: it melts - is it the same peace of wax? I can think of it as the same,- but it looks quite different now.
So only an idea can keep things together - or make difference.
The only certainty we have is that we can think and therefore “that we are”.
“I think therefore I am.” he liked to say.
From there on to the world of other facts lie all these things people can agree upon.
Often we agree on mathematics - like our restaurant bill here.
We agree on measuring because we agreed historically on a unit of length - meter or mile
Property can be a fact because of the laws we historically agreed upon.
But when it comes to politics - borders for example - are facts cannot always reach the balance of an historical agreement.
Borders (fact, units, one, a whole) can become strong stuff for discussion - even war!
So fact becomes collective and connective believe and agreement
in a format we agreed upon - (determination, maths, laws, language,...)
Same goes for science too: - fact until scientifically proven otherwise.
But what about a religious fact?
Religion you don’t need proof - you believe or you don't - without proof.
The problem comes when religion tries to get in the field of science
Or vice versa - scientific fact and religious fact live very happy together as long as the one doesn’t take the place of the other.
Thats why facts are only facts within their area - and they should be treated likewise.
Wily, you seem to be confusing "fact" with perception. In your restaurant scenario, the factual issue of the bill is limited to whether the numbers were added correctly. The price/quality ratio is irrelevant to whether the sum of the individual numbers is correct.
Moreover, agreement is irrelevant to the question of fact, for it implies that facts are whatever a majority agrees is a fact. This sort of relativism is antithetical to the very concept of "fact," leading to a world in which ignorance reigns.
As for your notion of "religious fact," that strikes me as an oxymoron, unless you are limiting the phrase to such statements as "Augustine wrote many texts on Christianity as well as many sermons" or "The title of Pope is given to the head of the Catholic Church."
Dear Colleagues ,
First of all:
The question here put by Ali Rahimi “What are the consequences post-fact, post-truth rationalization?”
- Has to do with facts in rhetorics - how certain “facts” are used in politics, in ethic- and political judgement.
Not the ontological “fact” - in the sense of “what is a factual world?”.
But the rhetorical “fact”.
- How words get used,
How problems become rationalized,
How the truth gets twisted around,
How false pretences are made,
How things are made up,
It’s about fact forgery! How to tell thruth from lies.
Its about the use of words,
Its about the use and misuse of information,
About populism against honesty, equity, emancipation.
About facts in the press, - the media…, about sophism, misleading speech, misrepresentation…
Facts in the field of rhetorics : words words words
There is quite a long list of philosophers who wrote about this after WWII: Jürgen Habermas and Hannah Arendt to Richard Rorty-
Seconds:
- There is “fact” in the broader ontological sense:
There is a world - there is something - but what do we make of it? -
The cause of philosophy - form Plato & Aristotle on shows that there is no final solution - and there never can be.
At that level you can only say: To be or not to be...
James Williams,
The relevancy- irrelevancy form one field to an other was precisely my point here!
-What you can see from one angle is invisible from an other.
(Niklas Luhmann calls it "autopoetics" )
the best,
Willy
Hello , thanks for your profound reflections ,
Binariziring and hierarchizing the differences between facts vs non-facts , facts vs fiction can by no means be materialized through group consensus, elites , etc entrenching man in the abyss of fallacious argument of Appeal to Authority.
Into the bargain, some collocations or combination of words are reflective of inherently paradoxical preposterous discourse which turns out to be against reason and rationality. .
it is not because the thinking is logical that the consequences are necessarily true
another example:
let's take "Google Earth"
The earth is a fact - right?
Google Earth is a representation of that fact.
The Layers feature in Google Earth provides a variety of data points of geographic interest that you can select to display over your viewing area .
So: it depends on the layers you use - which data will become relevant or not.
All are facts, but seen form a different angle, they become relevant or irrelevant.
(when I am looking in a city for a barber shop I don't kneed to know where the museums are - they become IRRELEVANT under that aspect - and vice versa)
The point here is :
There is no such thing as a "naked fact" - You need an open debate of "different layers" to discover "facts" - and that requires listening and empowerment from the participants - and the most difficult of all: speaking the same language.
If we attempt to bring the concept of "fact" into the realm of rhetoric, we are in problematic territory. The Sophists often adopted a relativistic stance, which led Plato (unfairly, I would argue) to characterize them as scoundrels and liars who do not deal with facts at all but with opinion. Aristotle differentiate rhetoric from science, a position that led him to propose that rhetoric does not focus on truth but rather involves drawing on all available means of persuasion to influence an audience.
From this perspective, the field of political discourse is exactly what we see--a swamp of mendacity and dishonesty that aims to indoctrinate the public and accrue political/personal power. I don't really see how we can even consider questions of fact in political rhetoric.
Socrates practiced maieutics - the pursue of thruth by questioning people on the marketplace. - Against the sophist Protagoras who claimed that man is the measure of all things.
Words are power indeed - also esthetics as in Plato's "Gorgias"
Words can be misleading ...but how do we know?
Socrates didn't go on thinking by his own, he confronted people - the open forum - and than again...
Education can help, investment in schooling and in the next generation - to stimulate the critical mind - scientific training - and than again - man is more than science can tell... it's a never ending story - but as long as the discussion goes on there must be hope...we'll never find the "Holy Grale" of substantial truth if there is any...
What remains of all thoughts left unsaid?
Wily, I must disagree once again. As Aristotle wrote, dialect was never intended to discover truth but rather to reveal the ignorance and stupidity of the interlocutor. Your reference to Protagoras is a perfect illustration of Aristotle's point. Finding a sense of aesthetics in Gorgias is remarkable, given that it is often considered to be Plato's most vicious attack l on the Sophists. If you are using aesthetics in connection with Polus' claim that rhetoric is an art, surely you recall that Plato criticized this assertion on the ground that art must "give a reason for the nature of its own application," which no one other than Plato then or now would accept as reasonable or true. He denies rhetoric techne status but then fails to offer an account for why rhetoric actually works. As Polus and Callicles note, Socrates' arguments may be logical but they are nevertheless false. So perhaps we are back where this all began, with questions about fact and truth.
Can we accept as "fact" or "truth" Plato's characterization of Gorgias? Given Gorgias' reputation for being a brilliant rhetorician, as well as the cleverness of his Helen, is it really possible that the stumbling, bumbling characterization in the dialogue is anything but a character assassination?
Science itself is not exact, thus the concept of facts amounts to a collective belief which is subject to change over time. It's reminiscent, in some sense, of attempting to "prove" causality.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology