This thread is inspired by a discussion in a legal thread about AI where several members have offered diverse opinions about the difference between truth and fact.

It is meant to give everyone a chance to expand on their view of this important subject.

On 6/8/2026 at 1:09 PM, studiot said:

On 6/8/2026 at 12:04 PM, dimreepr said:

  On 6/7/2026 at 11:39 PM, 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.

To kick off explanations let me expand on why I think the situation is more complicated.

Both truth and facts are about statements and both require the detail of context to fully express the meaning of a statement. The English language is particularly good in providing the means to express this meaning, whether limited to some specialist use for a particular discipline or in the wider context.

It may or may not be possible to assign a "truth value" to any given statement.

Fir example one of the simplest sentences in the English language is - " Go!"

This statement has no truth value whatsoever.

So truth can be classified as at least either true, or false or no value or indeterminate.

Don't have much time as I have a busy day ( I thought those were over once retired ) but I just had to reply to this.

Facts are global ( apply to everyone - objective ); truth is local ( applies to one person - subjective ).

Diplomatic agreements often involve statements that can be looked at in such a way that the end result gives both parties a different view of what the words can mean. In other words a different view of what both claim to be truth. The process is known as constructive ambiguity.

A true statement is a proposition. As @studiot notes, not all sentences are propositions, like "Get down!" And some only appear to be propositions like Noam Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously," because they lack meaningful reference to the world (may be nonsense or highly poetic or what have you). A good starting point (busy day, here, too) is Russell, with his correspondence theory of truth...

He holds that a statement is true if it strictly corresponds to an independent, objective fact. Truth is not determined by usefulness or consensus; rather, beliefs are formed by minds, but their truth hinges entirely on how they align with reality.

On his view, the condition of being true depends on objective fact.

One can trace a lot of modern theory of truth, say the last century, with his correspondence theory as a starting point.

20 hours ago, studiot said:

To kick off explanations let me expand on why I think the situation is more complicated.

Both truth and facts are about statements and both require the detail of context to fully express the meaning of a statement. The English language is particularly good in providing the means to express this meaning, whether limited to some specialist use for a particular discipline or in the wider context.

It may or may not be possible to assign a "truth value" to any given statement.

Fir example one of the simplest sentences in the English language is - " Go!"

This statement has no truth value whatsoever.

So truth can be classified as at least either true, or false or no value or indeterminate.

I think it's both very complicated and very simple:

"The limits of my language means the limits of my world." - Wittgenstein

Culture is one of many filters that determine both truth, and to a lesser extent, facts; most of what we think of as objective facts, is via an editor of some sort...

I may well be wrong about this, of course, but, as I see it, the difference lies more in the criterion. A fact must stand up to scrutiny in the wider world and its context. Depending on the language, the statement that is, the truth of it can shift.

14 hours ago, aliceinwonderland said:

I may well be wrong about this, of course, but, as I see it, the difference lies more in the criterion. A fact must stand up to scrutiny in the wider world and its context. Depending on the language, the statement that is, the truth of it can shift.

The truth about facts are, a lot of them will be wrong in a year or two...

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The truth about facts are, a lot of them will be wrong in a year or two...

Yes I agree. The Atacama Desert provides a prime example of this, using my earlier comments.

+1

The concept of 'truth' is a language element that obviously bewitches many people. In fact it is just the substantiation of the adjective 'true'. Example:

On 6/11/2026 at 4:13 PM, studiot said:

Both truth and facts are about statements

Of course: both refer to a true linguistical expression of a state of affairs. It says nothing more than that a statement is true. If I use the concept of 'truth', it is more a collection of true statements that are somehow related, e.g. in a murder case (to take the example of @Gees. From this view, the way (s)he uses the concepts of 'truth' here is nonsensical:

The correct description of his example would be:

• It is true that (s)he stands over the shot body of a man (s)he despises, with a gun in his (her) hand

• It is true (s)he did not kill him

• It is true that (s)he was convicted for this murder.

You can replace 'it is true' with 'it is a fact'. Even worse, you can discard of the phrase 'it is true that' completely: one is still saying the same.

And to add: if somebody talks about 'Truth' with capital 'T', then he is making himself important...

And I agree with what @TheVat posted.

Both are linguistic tools to convey ideas.
So let's examine the ideas they attempt to convey.

The word 'fact' indicates to your listener that they can independently verify what you have stated, and they will find agreement.
The word 'truth' is usually stated as 'my truth' or 'I believe to be true', indicating a personal belief, which might not be verified by other's.

No offense, Eise, but there is nothing Philosophical about it; the two terms, much like a hammer and a screwdriver, are defined by their intended purposes.
( although people do use hammers to drive in screws, and screwdriver handles to bash things )

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

No offense, Eise, but there is nothing Philosophical about it; the two terms, much like a hammer and a screwdriver, are defined by their intended purposes.

If we have a thread here in the philosophy forum, wouldn't we use definitions proper to that domain? In philosophy, when it's done well, hammers and screwdrivers have their specific purpose.

The sentence "I believe X to be true" is true as a statement of belief, i.e. when the speaker isn't lying, it's an honest report of one's state of mind. X itself, however, is true only when it is a proposition which aligns with reality.

I suggest it would be productive to widen the scope of the discussion.

Consider the statement 'A kiwifruit is delicious.'

This is true for some people but not for others so is not a fact, but a value judgement.

But the statement 'A kiwifruit is a fruit' is true regardless of how it tastes and is a fact.

Which brings me to the observation that English offers the ability to distinguish between Truth, a Truth and the Truth.

Another factor is time.

The statements

Mars is 150 million miles from Earth

Mars is 50 million miles from Earth

Can both be true, but are either facts ?

The statements

Churchill was born in 1874 was true in 1875, but not true in 1873.

Then again there are other ways than comparison with reality to establish veracity.

For instance 'A triangle has three corners' is true by definition.

So the tense of the verb is significant, and can cause confusion in those languages that do not have a present tense of this verb.

It seems to me "facts" are the same to any sane observer, whereas, "truth" is more subjective and limited by one's experiences and knowledge (and perhaps ability to use those to reason in a logical manner).

11 hours ago, npts2020 said:

It seems to me "facts" are the same to any sane observer, whereas, "truth" is more subjective and limited by one's experiences and knowledge (and perhaps ability to use those to reason in a logical manner).

Both are true, unless the observer actually observed the fact, for instance, a murder, eveyone else, sane or otherwise, are second degree observer's IOW their observations are via an editor.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

The word 'fact' indicates to your listener that they can independently verify what you have stated, and they will find agreement.

I agree with that, but not with

20 hours ago, MigL said:

The word 'truth' is usually stated as 'my truth' or 'I believe to be true', indicating a personal belief, which might not be verified by other's.

I acknowledge that it is often used like that, but for me it makes no sense. Say Gees has a long explanation for the murder scene, but he is not the murder. Then it makes perfectly sense that he says "It is the truth!". Not just his truth, he really did not commit the murder. 'my truth' is a contradiction for me. Otherwise it is what you already touch on: a belief.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

No offense, Eise, but there is nothing Philosophical about it; the two terms, much like a hammer and a screwdriver, are defined by their intended purposes.

Well, being precise is important in philosophical discussions. And where I agree that words in philosophical discussions should be defined as close as possible to their common use, more precise definitions are often necessary.

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Consider the statement 'A kiwifruit is delicious.'

This is true for some people but not for others so is not a fact, but a value judgement.

Yep. But then one should formulate it differently: 'I find kiwifruit delicious'. Then the truth of it is dependent on the fact if you really like kiwifruit, or that you do not like them at all. And, as you suggest, it is a legitimate expression of someone's taste. (I would not call it a value judgement, but that is a minor point).

TheVat makes the same point about belief:

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

The sentence "I believe X to be true" is true as a statement of belief, i.e. when the speaker isn't lying, it's an honest report of one's state of mind. X itself, however, is true only when it is a proposition which aligns with reality.

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Another factor is time.

Sure, but one should be just more precise, and specify the time when the statement is valid. I would even say that both your statements are incomplete without mentioning the time. They suggest that the distance is fixed.

17 hours ago, studiot said:

Churchill was born in 1874 was true in 1875, but not true in 1873.

No. In 'Churchill was born in 1874', stated in 1873 has no reference, so it has no truth value at all.

Thanks for the quibbles Eise, they just demonstrate my thesis that English is a very versatile language.

23 minutes ago, Eise said:

Yep. But then one should formulate it differently: 'I find kiwifruit delicious'.

23 minutes ago, Eise said:

Sure, but one should be just more precise, and specify the time when the statement is valid.

The speaker is not obliged to be more precise, but may do so if they wish.

Again English makes it particularly easy to build out extra conditions to achieve this.

However my statements you referred to are correct.

26 minutes ago, Eise said:

No. In 'Churchill was born in 1874', stated in 1873 has no reference, so it has no truth value at all.

I must disagree with you on this one since 'no truth value' includes my statement 'not true'.

Yes there are other possibilities for no truth value, but that just emphasises my point that binary logic is only part of the universe and the reality of the issue is very complicated.

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thanks for the quibbles Eise, they just demonstrate my thesis that English is a very versatile language.

The speaker is not obliged to be more precise, but may do so if they wish.

Again English makes it particularly easy to build out extra conditions to achieve this.

However my statements you referred to are correct.

I must disagree with you on this one since 'no truth value' includes my statement 'not true'.

Yes there are other possibilities for no truth value, but that just emphasises my point that binary logic is only part of the universe and the reality of the issue is very complicated.

Every value statement is complicated, that's why we value a fact, in law, beyond reasonable doubt, is enough to jail them, but not enough of a fact that we should just kill them, even if it saves money...

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Thanks for the quibbles Eise, they just demonstrate my thesis that English is a very versatile language.

Versatile ?
Don't you mean frustrating ?

I agree with Studiot that English is a very accomplished language; but also agree with MigL that it is frustrating.

Most of the posters in this thread have used language to try to describe the differences between fact and truth, and I think this is part of the problem. Fact and truth are different in their very natures, and although fact can be described by words and language, truth does not lend itself to language. So when we digitalize truth into language, we have already corrupted it.

To explain this, imagine that you have two buckets, one is entitled 'facts' and the other is entitled 'truths'. The 'facts' bucket is filled with sand and the 'truths' bucket is filled with water. If I ask you to take nine facts out of the 'facts' bucket, you can count out nine grains of sand. But if I ask you to take nine truths out of the 'truths' bucket, what can you do to ensure that you get whole truths and nothing extra? Truth is fluid, so it does not digitalize and does not easily convert to language.

Digital facts are thoughts and can be converted into specific words. Fluid truths are emotions and experiences and do not convert well into specific words. Yes we can use words like love, hate, and fear, but these words to not truly convey the feeling. The old expression, "walk a mile in my shoes" tells us that the words we use to explain emotions and experiences just do not cut it.

So how do we take subjective fluid truths (emotions and experiences) and convey them to another person without the benefit of words? We use music, dance, art, and poetry. Through music, dance, and art, we can feel what others feel, and through poetry, we can compare and relate to similar situations and experiences.

Gee

3 hours ago, Gees said:

To explain this, imagine that you have two buckets, one is entitled 'facts' and the other is entitled 'truths'. The 'facts' bucket is filled with sand and the 'truths' bucket is filled with water. If I ask you to take nine facts out of the 'facts' bucket, you can count out nine grains of sand. But if I ask you to take nine truths out of the 'truths' bucket, what can you do to ensure that you get whole truths and nothing extra? Truth is fluid, so it does not digitalize and does not easily convert to language.

I like this analogy. +1

I think it useful to differentiate between truth and fact in the following way.

There have been several suggestions along the lines of 'independent verification', however this is subject to the difficult outlined below.

I suggest it is useful to think of a fact as a single piece of information.
Otherwise we are always subject to issues with verification if we combine multiple statements, where part is 'true' or verified and part is not.

Whereas I think we can build up complex statements composed of multiple, even many, individual facts.

Since it is World Cup time here is a world cup example.

We can build up a complex statement, we believe to be true, such as 'The greatest team ever is XXX', by comparing individual match results from many teams, each of which is a single verifiable fact.

We may be mistaken in our belief or others may argue differently, or they may agree.

That allows for the situation where, as most have suggested, truth is more complicated than fact.

But allows a simple statement to be both a fact and a truth whilst also allowing a complex statement to display both truth and falsehood.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Since it is World Cup time here is a world cup example.

The ref calls his truth.
VAR establishes the facts.
( although I object to the disallowed Croatia goal against Portugal, last night )

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

The ref calls his truth.
VAR establishes the facts.
( although I object to the disallowed Croatia goal against Portugal, last night )

Note you said the facts (plural)

2 hours ago, studiot said:

We may be mistaken in our belief or others may argue differently, or they may agree.

here is another quibble.

Physicist "Here is a sine wave displayed on my oscilloscope"

Electronics Engineer "True or false ? what % distortion is acceptable ?"

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by studiot

On 7/2/2026 at 2:13 PM, studiot said:

Thanks for the quibbles Eise, they just demonstrate my thesis that English is a very versatile language.

That may be, but if one wants to clarify viewpoints, one should state these as precisely as possible. So do you really want to understand somebody's statements or do you only want to have a vague impression that you understand them?

On 7/2/2026 at 2:13 PM, studiot said:

However my statements you referred to are correct.

And I would say they are not, because they are not specific enough to proof their validity.

22 hours ago, MigL said:

Don't you mean frustrating ?

In a philosophical discussion? I would say so. It can mean that people are talking, think they understand each other, and at the same time think something differently, because they attach different meanings to words and statements.

8 hours ago, Gees said:

Through music, dance, and art, we can feel what others feel, and through poetry, we can compare and relate to similar situations and experiences.

Sure. But why call it truth? Does a Nazi military march convey truth? Philip Glass' opera 'Einstein on the Beach'? Bach's Matthew Passion? Wouldn't 'awe' be a a better word?

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by Eise

5 hours ago, studiot said:

We can build up a complex statement, we believe to be true, such as 'The greatest team ever is XXX', by comparing individual match results from many teams, each of which is a single verifiable fact.

I don’t think that believing something to be true makes it so; that describes an opinion. It’s neither true nor false.

In another thread I asked for an example of something that’s true that’s not a fact, and something that’s a fact that is not true. I don’t think it was answered there. Any takers?

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

In another thread I asked for an example of something that’s true that’s not a fact, and something that’s a fact that is not true. I don’t think it was answered there. Any takers?

Good question I too would like an answer to that.

37 minutes ago, Eise said:

And I would say they are not, because they are not specific enough to proof their validity.

Are you seriously suggesting that a speaker has to prove every utterance ?

Particularly my kiwifruit lovers for whom, by definition kiwifruit are delicious.

Or are you suggesting that kiwifruit are not delicious to some ?

Or are you suggesting that my English is incorrect ?

41 minutes ago, Eise said:

That may be, but if one wants to clarify viewpoints, one should state these as precisely as possible. So do you really want to understand somebody's statements or do you only want to have a vague impression that you understand them?

Now you have switched sides from analysing an utterance or statement to analysing the response from the listener.

Yes of course the listener is entitled to ask for clarification and may well receive it.

Here is another example

What colour is a cricket ball ?

A cricket ball is red.

I don't think that many English speakers would fail to understand this.

Yet red is a very general term and no two cricket balls are exactly the same red nor even the same ball after a period of play.

And if, as you claim, the speaker is obliged to clarify the 'red' how exactly would you suggest he does that ?