7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Whilst I agree with the differences, I contend that the post I referenced, is equally dishonest, he hasn't addressed any argument presented by the membership; just a polite excuse to leave and have the last word, I don't really see a difference in their attitude.

Unlike chalk and cheese I do not know of any universal hard and fast distinction between truth and fact, only that the distinction is very blurred.

This was why I started the thread.

It is clear from all the responses in this and other threads that there are nearly as many interpretations as there are thinkers.

I myself, do not have a clear distinction.

So I have tried to have a reasonable conversation with each member, as they put their own version, in the hope that I might learn something.

I have yet to find a resolution.

I was indeed having a reasonable discussion with @Gees, given that they are rather delicate.

But no I do not agree with everything they said either.

Perhaps that is why members are trying out different examples, to see how they fit with personal interpretations.

Edited Thursday at 12:14 PM5 days by studiot

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Unlike chalk and cheese I do not know of any universal hard and fast distinction between truth and fact, only that the distinction is very blurred.

This was why I started the thread.

It is clear from all the responses in this and other threads that there are nearly as many interpretations as there are thinkers.

I myself, do not have a clear distinction.

So I have tried to have a reasonable conversation with each member, as they put their own version, in the hope that I might learn something.

I have yet to find a resolution.

I was indeed having a reasonable discussion with @Gees, given that they are rather delicate.

But no I do not agree with everything they said either.

Perhaps that is why members are trying out different examples, to see how they fit with personal interpretations.

The one thing I can't say, for certain, about @cladking is that, he's being dishonest about what he believes is true.

I prefer the challenge bc I have a chance to at least steer his beliefs in a more productive direction.

It seems to me were in another affect versus effect situation, I see no benefit in knowing the difference (I know what I mean)...

One difference I see is that "truth" is a narrative based on "facts" and changes with more or different"facts", whereas, "facts" are unchanging. If a "fact" changes, it was never a fact to begin with.

On 7/8/2026 at 3:10 PM, TheVat said:

Glad you cleared that up! I think we can just accept that any true proposition about the world is what you have decided. After all, you're a self-proclaimed philosopher.

There's something narcissistic about calling oneself a 'philosopher'. Can't put my finger on it.

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

One difference I see is that "truth" is a narrative based on "facts" and changes with more or different"facts", whereas, "facts" are unchanging. If a "fact" changes, it was never a fact to begin with.

What do you think about my points re time?

What is the most populous country in the world ?

It used to be China but apparently it is now India.

What was the area of the United States

a) Before Alaska was acquired ?

b) After Alaska was acquired ?

Were these not facts at one time but not another ?

12 hours ago, npts2020 said:

One difference I see is that "truth" is a narrative based on "facts" and changes with more or different"facts", whereas, "facts" are unchanging. If a "fact" changes, it was never a fact to begin with.

Exactly, truth and fact are both based on a believe in an honest editor/teacher, one hopes; anything human is falable...

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

There's something narcissistic about calling oneself a 'philosopher'. Can't put my finger on it.

Same here - maybe it's that philosophy is a set of tools? As in, one can use them without taking on some identity. I own a blender and this morning puree some bananas and blueberries - it doesn't make me a blender.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Were these not facts at one time but not another ?

Good point. Both facts and true propositions can be contigent on time.

Ancient Greeks believed the planet Venus was two separate celestial bodies. When it appeared in the east before sunrise, they called it Phosphorus, and when it appeared in the west after sunset, they called it Hesperus. While it was never true, or a fact, that Venus was two separate planets, it is true that Greeks once believed there were two planets and gave Venus two names. And it's also a fact that, due to a former false belief among Greeks, Venus had two names.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Same here - maybe it's that philosophy is a set of tools? As in, one can use them without taking on some identity. I own a blender and this morning puree some bananas and blueberries - it doesn't make me a blender.

Good point. Both facts and true propositions can be contigent on time.

Ancient Greeks believed the planet Venus was two separate celestial bodies. When it appeared in the east before sunrise, they called it Phosphorus, and when it appeared in the west after sunset, they called it Hesperus. While it was never true, or a fact, that Venus was two separate planets, it is true that Greeks once believed there were two planets and gave Venus two names. And it's also a fact that, due to a former false belief among Greeks, Venus had two names.

Yeah, that's about right.

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yeah, that's about right.

So have you, or anybody else, identified any difference between truth and fact ?

I think I may have one

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So have you, or anybody else, identified any difference between truth and fact ?

Yes.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ancient Greeks believed the planet Venus was two separate celestial bodies.

That was their 'truth'.
But it is, was, and will always be a fact that Venus is one body.
No matter what is believed to be true by those particular people.
( lack of facts does not make them untrue, but truth is not necessarily factual )

12 hours ago, studiot said:

Were these not facts at one time but not another ?

Since there is change in the universe, some facts are time dependent, as pointed out by TheVat. Every one of those is still a fact for the time considered and that has not changed, nor has the "truth" from any of those times. Facts are immutable because they are based on a yes/no proposition, whereas truth is a narration that changes with the accumulation of more and better facts.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Yes.

That was their 'truth'.
But it is, was, and will always be a fact that Venus is one body.
No matter what is believed to be true by those particular people.
( lack of facts does not make them untrue, but truth is not necessarily factual )

You are talking about the difference between fact and something called belief, not something called truth.

Otherwise you have just proved the truthful fact of the existence of God.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

Since there is change in the universe, some facts are time dependent, as pointed out by TheVat. Every one of those is still a fact for the time considered and that has not changed, nor has the "truth" from any of those times. Facts are immutable because they are based on a yes/no proposition, whereas truth is a narration that changes with the accumulation of more and better facts.

So facts are immutable but can change ?

How does that work ?

In the light of the rest of your post please consider this picture then state the subject of the picture (which surely is a fact ?)

23 hours ago, npts2020 said:

One difference I see is that "truth" is a narrative based on "facts" and changes with more or different"facts", whereas, "facts" are unchanging. If a "fact" changes, it was never a fact to begin with.

Doesn’t that apply to truth, as well?

2 hours ago, studiot said:

therwise you have just proved the truthful fact of the existence of God.

I don't see how that follows.
What is a truthful fact ?
And what would then be an untrue fact ???

If I say something is 'true', you can say that it isn't.
If I say something is a 'fact', either you, or I, can verify it and there cannot be disagreement.
But maybe that is just my personal usage of the two words.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Yes.

That was their 'truth'.
But it is, was, and will always be a fact that Venus is one body.
No matter what is believed to be true by those particular people.
( lack of facts does not make them untrue, but truth is not necessarily factual )

Indeed, but you can't say it's true or a fact, that those people believed that, they may have called it two different name's, not bc they didn't know the difference but bc it represents two different times of day, as in sunrise and sunset, we don't believe there's two different sun's.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't see how that follows.

Because you equated truth with belief by saying

17 hours ago, MigL said:

That was their 'truth'.
But it is, was, and will always be a fact that Venus is one body.
No matter what is believed to be true by those particular people.
( lack of facts does not make them untrue, but truth is not necessarily factual )

If what I believe can be called true in some way then God exists for some folks (not me though).

10 hours ago, MigL said:

If I say something is 'true', you can say that it isn't.
If I say something is a 'fact', either you, or I, can verify it and there cannot be disagreement.

I also disagree with this statement that that all facts are verifiable.

It is to do with knowledge and, surprisingly, belief.

The are no known full analytical solutions to the Navier Stokes equations so it is believed that none exist.

A simpler example might be something nearer home to you.

What is the land area of Greenland ?

There must be a land area and it must therefore be a fact.

But the value is unknown, because we can't verify it, so we have a best estimate, but you will only find the word estimate in the best tables of 'facts'.

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but you can't say it's true or a fact, that those people believed that, they may have called it two different name's, not bc they didn't know the difference but bc it represents two different times of day, as in sunrise and sunset, we don't believe there's two different sun's.

I didn't think of the morning star v evening star about the two bodies bit.

Thank you for that +1

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by studiot