1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

13 hours ago, Gees said:

Facts require truth in order to be facts, but truths do not require facts in order to be true. This is why science has been called a child of philosophy, but philosophy has never been called a child of science.

Not at all, facts requires faith for us to accept them, truth is just waiting for us to prove it wrong, again...

I disagree with both members' statements as the situation is rather more complicated than either simplistic view of truth or fact.

Rather than indulge in semantic argument, surely it is better for any user of either vague term to define exactly what they mean by fact or truth, or the relationship betwen them if they need that.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

I disagree with both members' statements as the situation is rather more complicated than either simplistic view of truth or fact.

Rather than indulge in semantic argument, surely it is better for any user of either vague term to define exactly what they mean by fact or truth, or the relationship betwen them if they need that.

In France, it's illegal to call a pig Napoleon...

14 hours ago, Gees said:

Spoken like a true science guy. Yes, facts are dependent on their truth value, but are truths dependent on facts? No. Instead of arguing this forever, I will give you an example so you can understand my position.

You walk into a room and see me standing over a dead body. A man has been shot and I am standing there with a gun in my hand. Worse yet, the dead body is from a man that I despise and everyone knows it. Six months later, it is a fact that I am a convicted murdered, and it is the truth that I have never killed anyone. I picked up the gun off of the floor because I was stupid with shock, but instinctively I knew that guns are dangerous and there are children about.

Facts require truth in order to be facts, but truths do not require facts in order to be true. This is why science has been called a child of philosophy, but philosophy has never been called a child of science.

But for a statement to be true, it must correspond to some state of affairs in the world, i.e. be factual. (Or, if an analytic truth, be inherent in the meanings of the words used) So synthetic truths (to use Kant's distinction) ARE dependent on facts. (This, BTW, is not about me being a science guy, but a precision in how we use words in any context like this)

Your example isn't really working, given that it describes a situation where key facts were missing and therefore an untrue verdict resulted from a failure of due process. The true statement is that you did not shoot the man, and it is also a fact that you did not shoot him. That a court made a grave error in discovering the key facts doesn't require us to redefine what facts are. Synthetic truths DO require facts, i.e. statements which correspond to reality.

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In France, it's illegal to call a pig Napoleon...

So, a certain George Orwell book has been banned?

22 hours ago, TheVat said:

So, a certain George Orwell book has been banned?

I have no idea, but it is plausible, Napoleon was loved by many and equating him with a pig is not acceptable; you should see some of the law's in some American state's. 🙃

I did hear it from a source of trust tho...

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

But for a statement to be true, it must correspond to some state of affairs in the world, i.e. be factual. (Or, if an analytic truth, be inherent in the meanings of the words used) So synthetic truths (to use Kant's distinction) ARE dependent on facts. (This, BTW, is not about me being a science guy, but a precision in how we use words in any context like this)

I was thinking more Wittgenstein "The limits of my language means the limits of my world."

Edited 58 minutes ago58 min by dimreepr