Talk:Fact

message: Hey, all! We’ve currently got a conflict between the short article description and the first sentence of the lead and I want to run this by everyone before making any changes. The short description is: “Statement that is consistent with reality or can be proven with evidence.” The first sentence of the lead is: “A fact is an occurrence in the real world.” 
The first sentence of the lead is more accurate (although I may want to come back to this sometime later, since it seems to be conflating facts, states of affairs, and events, which contemporary metaphysicians regard as separate, but related, ontological categories)—facts are components of reality itself. 
The short description, however, is talking about propositions (I’m assuming this is what is meant by “statement”). Propositions are ABOUT facts, but are not themselves facts, and, per the standard Correspondence Theory of Truth, propositions are true iff they correspond to facts (consistency is an entirely separate notion, as any proposition that doesn’t conflict with the facts is consistent with them, but that doesn’t mean that the proposition corresponds to the facts). And then there’s the issue of proof (i.e., justification), which is confusing things further in the short description. Whether a proposition is fully justified is independent of whether the proposition is true, and, as noted, a true proposition is not the same thing as the fact that is described by the true proposition.
These may seem like minor distinctions, but they’re hugely important in metaphysics and epistemology. Facts are not propositions, justified propositions are not true propositions. I can give a bunch of cites to intro metaphysics and epistemology texts if anyone needs. The SEP’s articles on these issues do a great job, already, though.
Before I propose anything re: an update to the short description, are these any questions about these distinctions or about anything else I’ve said? I think all of our great philosophically trained editors will be on-board here, but just making sure. Thanksforhelping (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that the purpose of short descriptions is very limited.  It's really mostly about making sure mobile users have some very broad context; it doesn't have to be a precise definition.  For this article I think an empty short description would actually be fine. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ll remove the short description for now, then. Happy to talk more about it if someone decides to revert.Thanksforhelping (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Your analysis and recommendation are both sound. See my attempts above. They have thus far failed; largely because several editors here are wedded to the abstruse and invalid usage "occurrence in the real world". A fact is an item of information which is understood to be true by the person presenting it and which in good faith, is taken by others to be true, unless disproved. This "occurrence in the real world" stuff is meaningless. Does a "fact" exist when a tree goes down in the forest and no one hears it, sees it or knows about it? No, there are not any facts until people arrive on the scene. No facts exist regarding that downed tree until reasonable people via skilled assessment, examine the toppled tree and determine that yes, it did merely fall; rather than was knocked down by a landslide or was felled by a woodsman. And BTW, the existence of woodsmen, is why we use the word "felled tree" instead of "fallen tree" when such workers are involved. A felled tree is deliberately brought down by a lumberjack; but until you examine the tree which is on the ground, you don't know what the facts are as to which means got it there. Facts exist on the information layer, not on the layer of the 'real' which is what we describe via facts. And for the record, human perception, reasoning and understanding simply is not powerful enough, precise enough or effective enough to exactly assess all aspects of the "real world". Thus, human knowledge is always an imperfect characterization of the "real world". It's like Zeno's Arrow. Humanity's knowledge gets closer and closer over time, but we never quite get there. Facts are the crutch we use to know the "real world", they do not occur in the world; they are meta, they are information about the world. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "A fact is something that is true"; still inadequate, an interum improvement. Banno (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Some alternates: "A fact is what is the case"; A fact is a true statement".Banno (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to demonstrate that ultimately, a "fact" is a didactic rhetorical device, the sole purpose of which is to establish a common understanding of truth among those who adhere to them; but no matter what, they exist only on the information layer: When I was a young child (more than 50 years ago) my family visited Sequoia National Park. Of the trees we saw close up, I was most enthralled by General Sherman (tree). At the time, the small visitor fence/barrier was not as close to the tree as it is now - it was about 15 feet away. While there, for no particular reason other than the pure joy of childhood, I climbed over the small barrier, ran over and hugged the tree. Now, it's been more than 50 years, but I can still remember the smell of that forest and the feel of the texture of the bark on that tree. So then; let's ask ourselves what "facts" are involved in that tree visit? Did I hug a tree? Yes, I did, so that's a "fact". Was that hug an "occurrence in the real world"? Yes it was. But is it also a fact that I can remember the way the tree felt? Yes it is. At the time I felt the texture of the tree, are those values which I assigned to that feel "facts"? The tree bark felt very strong, smooth and segmented to me; but it also felt rough. Now let me ask; is it a fact that my tactile experience resulted in those conclusions? Yes. Those conclusions were indeed my facts. But were they the actual facts about the texture of the tree? Aha - there's the rub; the answer is "who can say"?  Do we accept the perceptions of a 5 year old as the basis of our factual conclusions regarding "the real world"? The answer is no, rational adults do not do that. The simple truth is that "facts" can only be rationally proffered by competent sincere persons capable of reasonable skill, who make a best efforts assessment, and come to a conclusion of information. Simply put, "facts" are on the information layer; and the information offered by children is far from exact. Facts are information about things, they are not attributes of the things themselves. And just to make this clear: Were I to have been autistic and unable to verbally share an assessment of my tactile experience in hugging that tree, I surely would have the feelings, but I would not be able to express any facts. And if I can't express them, you can't know them from me. Thus, my autistic expressions to you would not include any facts. In other words, facts, being expressions in the form of information, can (and do) only exist on the information layer. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description vs. first sentence conflict 

message: I’ve made a modification to the first sentence of the lead to match both our cited sources and academic understanding of facts and truth. The lead previously said that facts are things that are true. According to the cites and academic opinion, propositions, not facts, are the bearers of truth-values, and so it is propositions (and, secondarily, sentences, inscriptions, utterances, etc.) that can be true/false, not facts. Facts are what MAKE propositions true, but facts themselves cannot be true. I’m happy to discuss this, although I don’t anticipate an issue, since the RS do not claim that facts are bearers of truth-values. ThanksForHelping (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the legal arena, a fact is a datum offered to the court (via evidence/testimony) which is presumed to be true unless rebutted. That's why the court process includes "fact finding", which is the process of the authority (judge or jury) determining which facts are true. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact (law) exists as a redirect; the definition at its target should be law-focused. Our lead sentence here should be generalized, not tailored to legal application. I think ThanksForHelping's Aug 28 version was superior. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I like "A fact is a statement that accurately describes reality" Lbeaumont (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to lead 

message: "First-link" game is when you click the first link of an article. I have no other name for it, but almost all editors must have heard that when you click the first link of a majority of pages it ends up at the philosophy page. 
I am not sure if this is considered vandalism or was intentionally done, or if I am having a personal epistemological crisis, but at the very least I suppose it deserves a section on the talk page. I am unsure of a solution for this. 
The path in question is from Fact > Truth Value [links from 'True-False evaluation'] > Logic > Reason > Consciousness > Sentience > Feeling I am a Leaf (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer:  No, it isn't problematic, and no solution is needed, because there is no problem.  WP pages should be edited based on encyclopedic goals, without worrying about this trivial amusement. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Problematic that if you play the "first-link" game on the 'Fact' page that you end up on the page for 'Feeling'?