What's horrible?



When someone is making claims while using terms that have several different definitions, asking the speaker to give the definition in use helps to avoid the problems that often result when two different people are using the same term to talk about different things.

That being said, if you wish for me to talk about those answers, then I need to know which definitions you're putting to use. Each term has several different definitions, some of which hold different meaning than others. I do not want to address the definitions that you're not putting to use.

Define your terms.

Not all "statements of fact are true." They are only true if they correspond to current reality.

A fact is an individual (singular) statement about truth.(Reality)

So the correct resulted statement would be:

A single statement about truth is true if it corresponds to truth.

or:

A single statement about truth (a fact) is true if it corresponds to truth(reality.)

You look a bit pale.

The terms "truth" and "reality" are not identical in meaning. Indeed most people will have many impressions and interpretations about what those two words mean in the context that they are being used.

But when I say that truth = reality, I am attempting to define the deepest meaning of the words.

Reality is real. (states the obvious)
Real is truth. (not illusion or fake)

If on the grander scale, truth = reality, then reality also = truth.

It is what is.

It is the state of affairs.

One must have faith that truth exists because we exist.

We cannot know the whole of truth or the state of affairs. We are not all knowing.

We can know that we exist.

My truth is that

I AM.

"I Am." is the ultimate true statement.

I think that your account needs some work Jb. Your last response, prior to paleface, doesn't make any difference to the one prior, nor to my objection. Stop calling statements "facts" and it would clear some things up.



Either reality=truth or not. It cannot be both.

(If the words were identical in meaning, there would be no need for different words.)

I am simply reducing the meaning to its core.

Your example:

"A statement of truth is true if it corresponds to truth."

That was simply written WRONG and made to sound redundant, but it is still a true statement.


"A statement of truth" means a fact.

"is true" means the statement is true.

"truth" equals "reality.




It makes perfect sense.

Be both what?

Reality = Truth.

The whole reason for the term "fact" is to identify a state of affairs.

If a particular state of affairs or condition (or whatever you imagine a fact to be) is not identified as such, what need would there be for the term "fact?" It would all just be "truth."

So why can't a statement be called a fact?

This doesn't help matters along Jb. If the words have different meanings then why don't you use them like that? Swapping back and forth between different meanings is called equivocating, and it is fallacious.

The statement I made followed exactly from your definition given for a statement of fact which is true.

Well, not exactly. "Fact" as I'm using the term makes a crucial distinction between statements and what they describe. Statements are not themselves the states of affairs. Thus, statements are not facts.



I do not agree with this conclusion. Truth is what makes statements true.



See above.

Reality cannot be both equal to truth and not equal to truth.

Better you try to prove those answers wrong by any meaning as per your convenience.
Okay?

Nah. I'd rather see your argument showing what it takes for those things to be true. It is your claim.

Regardless of what you think, people make statements and call them "facts" all the time.

And that's a fact.

That is how the term is used in common language. It means that the statement represents a fact, or it can mean that the statement is "true."

True, the statement itself is not the "actual fact," it is just a statement. Statements are just statements. They can be deemed to be true or false, or they can be called facts or "factual." They can be deemed lies also.

And when I talk about the cup being on the table, the word "cup" is not the actual cup either. The term "table" is not the actual table either. They are words that represent the cup and table.

So don't pretend you don't know what someone is talking about when they make a statement and call it a fact. Like:

Our grass is green in the summer. That is a fact.

Well of course that is a common use, one of several, and I would not argue otherwise. But that's not the point. The point is that that use leads to incoherence. Most folk do not spend much time thinking about how they say things or whether or not it makes sense to say this or that in a certain way. Practically speaking, most folk just get on with it.

I'm not most folk, and doing philosophy from a dictionary is poor practice. Philosophy is about concepts, not words.



Well, of course. People can call all sorts of things all sorts of names. That alone does not say much. Here, the need for "actual" comes from equating statements with fact. If a statement is called a "fact", then you must posit the qualifier "actual" to distinguish the two, whereas if we do not conflate statements and fact to begin with, there is no need re-establish the distinction between the two.

It is obvious that the distinction is necessary, so why not draw it and maintain it from the beginning rather than conflating between the two only to later re-establish the distinction with "actual". Extra work with no additional benefit, only unnecessary confusion.

Occam's razor applies.



Why don't you talk about "actual" cups and "actual" tables then? I would suspect that it is because we both know that the word is not the thing. However, when you call a statement a "fact", then you're conflating two distinct things. Calling the same statement a true statement serves to lessen the unnecessary confusion.



Only if "cup" is the cup. If not then that is a statement.

JB,

If you would like to see a perfect example of the problem with calling statements "facts", take a look at Pan's response at 2:39 in the sacrifice thread. He is also conflating facts with statements. Going on to say something about "weighing.. facts". Now, if a fact is a statement, how does one possibly "weigh" a statement? I mean what is being used to weigh them against/with? More importantly, what exactly is being weighed? The only thing that matters is whether or not the statement is true. So, "weigh the facts" must mean assessing whether or not "the facts" are true, which implies that facts can be false. That is the kind of utter nonsense that results from confusing facts and true statements. In other words, we don't "weigh the facts". We "weigh" statements by looking at the facts and comparing what is being said with the way things are.

Here's the problem in a nutshell...

Facts are neither true nor false, rather statements are true/false by virtue of correspondence with/to fact/reality or the lack thereof. Now, if we call a true statement a "fact", we arrive at an infinite regress that cannot take an account of what being true requires. True statements would be true by virtue of corresponding to other true statements, and those would be true by virtue of corresponding to other true statements, etc. That ends in an infinite regress which does not have the ability to account for what it takes for a statement to be true to begin with.

Here is a definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact


fact   [fakt] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.
Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.


Number one and two agrees that a fact is something that is known to exist, known to have happened, actually exists, or is reality, and/or truth.

Number four states or implies that a fact is a statement: IE: "Something said to be true or supposed to have happened." It also implies that a "fact" could be wrong or "questionable."

So Creative, you are claiming that a statement cannot be a fact. It can only be "true" or "false" because a fact is something that exists, reality, truth, etc.

And yet you have also insisted that statements exist.

If a fact is an actual thing, how can a witness give facts, as in the following statement used for an example:

"The facts given by the witness are highly questionable."

Reality is a fabric in which truth can indeed be = or not.

If you were an atomic nucleus and attempting to ascertain the 'truth' of an electron your reality knows exists...

You would only be able to place that 'truth' in a probability curve of its 'energy' level.

(and its probability would also be effected by any other 'atomic nucleus' that was near enough for your 'probability shells' to concide).

Truth can be known.

Yet its measurements change (because reality expands).

Why are you questioning me about the uses of the term that I reject because they lead to incoherence? Would you like to go down through the list, one at a time, and show how and where they fail to make sense?

Dictionaries list the most common uses of a word. They do not gaurantee that that use makes sense when looked at more closely.