4 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

IMO this is post-modernist nonsense: a corruption of language; and fundamentally opposed to scientific orthodoxy.

In scientific usage of English in the last 350-odd years, 'truth' and 'fact' have been used synonymously in their primary sense of meaning: the opposite of 'false'.

Before that, 'fact' essentially existed in the language through its occurrence in the Vulgate:

... the primary meaning being 'done'.

'True' on the other hand goes back deep into the Germanic roots of English, where it shares an etymology with 'tree' to give meanings of 'steadfast, faithful, loyal'.

Some of these older senses still exist in general English usage ('after-the-fact', 'a true edge' etc.), so they are not mathematically equal in all senses.

But in their particular common scientific sense of 'not false', is equivalent to the extent that anyone attempting to split them is trying to rewrite the dictionaries.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Or we just call it opinion, as I suggested. But “Bob likes vanilla” is still true for everyone, assuming Bob is not lying, so I don’t see how it’s a personal truth. It’s just truth.

Thank you both for enquiring more deeply into the subject, yet showing much common sense.

True or truth is also extensively used in Science and Engineering to mean 'correct or fitting or some other specialist meaning', often echoing Seth's Germanic derivation.

Carpenters and mechanical engineers have a true angle, (meaning a right angle) a true cut , a true and they test edges and surfaces for truth (straightness or flatness).

Draftsmen, surveyors have a true section (meaning both axes are at the same scale) and true to scale.

None of these truths are facts.

11 hours ago, npts2020 said:

IMO "truth"is ultimately unattainable and is therefore reduced to a personal outlook, so discussions about whether it changes or not are moot. That is why people have different "truths", even when having all of the same facts. The best humans can do is use our inventive and reasoning skills to come up with an approximation and it is that approximation that really changes, (hopefully to become more like) instead of "truth".

So just toss out science, empirical observations, and other intersubjective agreements and let truth just mean "my opinion"? Toss out Russell? Toss out the dictionary, too? It's just my opinion that Uranus is farther away than Cleveland? Even after 250 years, hundreds of thousands of observations and measurements of Uranus (snicker), and the accrual of a vast mountain of unequivocal evidence... maybe Cleveland is actually farther away?

As @sethoflagos and others have pointed out, truth and fact have been used synonymously for the past several centuries, and dictionaries have recognized this. It would seem to me that truth, by definition, is not just your personal perspective.

57 minutes ago, studiot said:

Thank you both for enquiring more deeply into the subject, yet showing much common sense.

True or truth is also extensively used in Science and Engineering to mean 'correct or fitting or some other specialist meaning', often echoing Seth's Germanic derivation.

Carpenters and mechanical engineers have a true angle, (meaning a right angle) a true cut , a true and they test edges and surfaces for truth (straightness or flatness).

Draftsmen, surveyors have a true section (meaning both axes are at the same scale) and true to scale.

None of these truths are facts.

So one difference is when you look at their multiple definitions, but we could limit ourselves to the use of true and fact that are most similar to each other, i.e. the use of true that’s opposite of false, and fact that’s often synonymous with true.

13 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

IMO this is post-modernist nonsense: a corruption of language; and fundamentally opposed to scientific orthodoxy.

In scientific usage of English in the last 350-odd years, 'truth' and 'fact' have been used synonymously in their primary sense of meaning: the opposite of 'false'.

The "nonsense" AFAICT is the notion that anyone can know EVERY SINGLE FACT to be able to discern "TRUTH". I would like to know which scientists think we will ever be on the verge of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt what truth is and when that might happen? It seems to me, the more we learn the more disagreements scientists end up with. When one matter is resolved other areas of disagreement pop up. Science is about resolving exactly what a fact is and using those facts to attempt discerning what is true or truth. Since we, as humans, are all missing an innumerable number of those facts we each have different truths. Assembling a bunch of facts (truths as you call them) doesn't necessarily mean one has found truth.

9 hours ago, TheVat said:

So just toss out science, empirical observations, and other intersubjective agreements and let truth just mean "my opinion"? Toss out Russell? Toss out the dictionary, too? It's just my opinion that Uranus is farther away than Cleveland? Even after 250 years, hundreds of thousands of observations and measurements of Uranus (snicker), and the accrual of a vast mountain of unequivocal evidence... maybe Cleveland is actually farther away?

As @sethoflagos and others have pointed out, truth and fact have been used synonymously for the past several centuries, and dictionaries have recognized this. It would seem to me that truth, by definition, is not just your personal perspective.

Some people do exactly that. Not sure why you think I was claiming it ought to be done by anyone here.

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for quoting right-wing influencers and MAGA supporters, but they do illustrate the difference.
" Facts don't care about your feelings, nor what you think is true."

And people like RFK Jr. who snorted coke off toilet seats, claimed that a worm ate part of his brain, who dropped a dead bear in Central Park and chopped the head off a whale,, actually thinks that no vaccine is safe and effective to be the truth.
Or the senile, vindictive moron that Americans call President who actually believes he won the 2020 Presidential election; after being laughed out of Court countless times due to lack of evidence, he still claims it to be true.

The facts, however, say otherwise.

Notice the not-so-subtle difference.
Facts are immutable; truth ? ... not so much.

On 7/3/2026 at 1:25 PM, 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?

Are events with numerous possibilities both true and false at the same time?

I watched a lecture from the Great Courses on game theory. It gave the problem of a football game penalty kick. Should the goalie go left or right? The math says he should go left. But that doesn’t mean the kicker won’t kick right. Each way is both right or wrong at the same time.

My third grade teacher told me that it was impossible to divide a smaller number by a larger number. I ask why and she said it was just impossible. So to me it was impossible. Then in higher grades the teachers wonder why the class doesn’t understand fractions.

6 hours ago, Trurl said:

Are events with numerous possibilities both true and false at the same time?

I watched a lecture from the Great Courses on game theory. It gave the problem of a football game penalty kick. Should the goalie go left or right? The math says he should go left. But that doesn’t mean the kicker won’t kick right. Each way is both right or wrong at the same time.

My third grade teacher told me that it was impossible to divide a smaller number by a larger number. I ask why and she said it was just impossible. So to me it was impossible. Then in higher grades the teachers wonder why the class doesn’t understand fractions.

Excellent question, sorry I don't know the answer, but that is the whole point of a discussion. +1

In regards of the the Maths comment, I agree this is very disconcerting as I discovered many years ago as a pupil.

It springs out of the need to learn in what I call a spiral approach and occurs in many disciplines.

We have to start somewhere and as we gain knowledge and progress simple versions of the topic are often presented.

The trouble comes when the teacher tries to drive a point home by being too adamant, even to the point of cutting short a brighter pupil who asks questions.

Another good example of this occurs in elementary Physics.

A vector is a quantity with magnitude and direction, right ?

Well not quite since the zero vector has no direction, but how many teachers present this last fact.

This is being discussed in this thread about AI, where @CharonY is arguing strongly that AIs do not make good teachers.

It takes a good teacher to strike the right balance between pedantry and future progress.

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by studiot

9 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I would like to know which scientists think we will ever be on the verge of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt what truth is and when that might happen?

Truth is easy. Just stand in front of a mirror and practise saying the words 'I don't know' until word perfect.

Post deleted

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by studiot

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

Truth is easy. Just stand in front of a mirror and practise saying the words 'I don't know' until word perfect.

I know you are not bring entirely serious,but I found that learning things by rote tended to destroy what seemed to me like a good understanding of what I was trying to understand.

The "truth", maybe lies "behind" the words and the words are a crutch (or a tool) for one to gain an internal understanding of what the words are about..

When I was able to read books competently** it often used to be the case that I would read a page or two only to realise I had taken practically nothing in.

Edit:re-reading your post I think you agree and are suggesting that the words I don't know" woll eventually sink in.

Socrates,btw seems to have been one of the first proponents of leveraging his own ignorance to gain a better understanding,as evidenced in these quotes from Plato's Apologia

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1692879

** I no longer have the ability to concentrate as much.

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by geordief

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

Are events with numerous possibilities both true and false at the same time?

I watched a lecture from the Great Courses on game theory. It gave the problem of a football game penalty kick. Should the goalie go left or right? The math says he should go left. But that doesn’t mean the kicker won’t kick right. Each way is both right or wrong at the same time.

My third grade teacher told me that it was impossible to divide a smaller number by a larger number. I ask why and she said it was just impossible. So to me it was impossible. Then in higher grades the teachers wonder why the class doesn’t understand fractions.

There's a reason it's called a pyramid of understanding, a teacher that doesn't know how to transition between the levels, isn't a very good teacher; when I was a 7 year old child my teacher told me there's no such word as can't, when I was nine I'd learned enough to push back on that fallacy...😘

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

Are events with numerous possibilities both true and false at the same time?

I watched a lecture from the Great Courses on game theory. It gave the problem of a football game penalty kick. Should the goalie go left or right? The math says he should go left. But that doesn’t mean the kicker won’t kick right. Each way is both right or wrong at the same time.

Non-sequitur, but can you assign a true or false label to a future event that has yet to be determined?

10 hours ago, Trurl said:

My third grade teacher told me that it was impossible to divide a smaller number by a larger number. I ask why and she said it was just impossible. So to me it was impossible. Then in higher grades the teachers wonder why the class doesn’t understand fractions.

Your teacher was wrong, or the statement was taken out of context. I don’t see what this has to do with the topic.

1 hour ago, geordief said:

I know you are not bring entirely serious,but I found that learning things by rote tended to destroy what seemed to me like a good understanding of what I was trying to understand.

A couple of examples then:

"I don't know the exact value of pi"

"22/7 is an acceptable approximation for pi in some instances"

I'd suggest that both these statements are absolutely true to the extent that I might have an issue with anyone who questioned my honesty on the matter.

The key is that telling the truth does not require an absolute and precise understanding of the universe: it just needs clarity on the applicable limits to one's knowledge. As in the standard note to mechanical general arrangement drawings:

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, TOLERANCES ARE PER ISO 2768-mK

... the dimensions are nominal approximations, but the degree of ignorance is precisely defined.

32 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

A couple of examples then:

"I don't know the exact value of pi"

"22/7 is an acceptable approximation for pi in some instances"

I'd suggest that both these statements are absolutely true to the extent that I might have an issue with anyone who questioned my honesty on the matter.

The key is that telling the truth does not require an absolute and precise understanding of the universe: it just needs clarity on the applicable limits to one's knowledge. As in the standard note to mechanical general arrangement drawings:

... the dimensions are nominal approximations, but the degree of ignorance is precisely defined.

Yes,when we accept the limits of our ability to know things and that we are also aware that we can be "economical" (or fraudulent) with the truth then objections as to whether simple statements can be called truthful seem unnecessarily picky.

I am very happy with the understanding that all knowledge is like a stand in for later understandings as more evidence and context becomes available (as it surely does with the passage of time)

In fact I am much more comfortable with the "withheld judgement" position than a wished for certainty about absolutely (ironically) anything.

Almost like an epiphany with me.I don't really care if God plays dice with the universe but am quite happy if God does (or doesn't)

(Are apparent certainties a statistical feature of the macro world ?)

I would think it is a fact that no one knows the exact value of Pi.

But the true value of Pi, for me or @sethoflagos , might be 3.14159 or 22/7, while for Suresh Kumar Sharma ( Indian ) who can recite the value of Pi to 70030 digits, from memory, in 17 hours and 14 minutes, my value is very far from true.

Different people have different truths; facts are the same for everyone.

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by MigL

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Facts are immutable; truth ? ... not so much.

This seems to shift the defined meaning of true to fit your contrast. A true statement about reality can be just as immutable as a fact. Indeed, it's hard to see the difference, except that facts are generally synthetic (in Kant's sense), i.e. empirically based, while some true statements can be analytic, e.g. triangles have three linear sides. We don't need empiricism to state that about triangles because triangles are by definition three-sided. Same with "all bachelors are unmarried." Such truths might be called "hidden tautologies."

Again, people are welcome to come up with idiosyncratic definitions of true/truth, but in the forum's domain of logic/epistemology, it seems more productive to use the formal definitions for that domain.

3 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

The key is that telling the truth does not require an absolute and precise understanding of the universe: it just needs clarity on the applicable limits to one's knowledge.

Yes! That's the epistemological clarity one needs for finding an agreed-upon meaning. An approximation is true when it references (or implies) its own degree of approximateness.

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This seems to shift the defined meaning of true to fit your contrast. A true statement about reality can be just as immutable as a fact.

I have stated that before; that is how I use the terms 'true' and 'fact'.
All facts are true; not all truths are factual.

You can provide as many facts that are true as you wish, but I only need to provide one 'truth' that is not factual, to make my point.

18 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Some people do exactly that. Not sure why you think I was claiming it ought to be done by anyone here.

Some of the confusion was maybe with your line...

"IMO "truth"is ultimately unattainable and is therefore reduced to a personal outlook, so discussions about whether it changes or not are moot..."

....came from perhaps the way you are using "truth" in a broad coverage of assemblages of true propositions, where some might prefer the word "paradigm" or "settled theory" or SLT. In philosophy, statements and propositions can be true or false, whereas assemblages of them would be rather a body of knowledge or what have you. So in the domain of this forum actual facts and true statements are quite similar things, and not at all about personal outlook. To be sure, personal outlook would be relevant when a statement is made about the relative proximity of (to revert to my example which makes inner 12 year olds giggle) Uranus and Cleveland, Ohio. But if my statement acknowledges my outlook (my geographic and solar system location) then it can still be universally agreed upon beyond my own subjectivity. In this time and place, Cleveland will always be closer.

Just now, MigL said:

You can provide as many facts that are true as you wish, but I only need to provide one 'truth' that is not factual, to make my point.

But here your idiosyncratic take will let you down, semantically. If a truth is not factual, then it never was a truth at all. If true has real meaning, then it shouldn't need the scare-quotes.

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If a truth is not factual, then it never was a truth at all.

Ah ! The 'hind sight' argument.
The fact that it was a 'truth' at one time, tells of the variable definition of 'true'.

Let me put it this way ...
If we're ever in a discussion where I say something is 'true', you can question me, and the thinking that allowed me to arrive to such a conclusion.
Even if I say "I don't know the value of Pi to 10 decimal places" that is a truth, as it may change once more knowledge is gained.

If, in that discussion, I say something is a 'fact', you can look it up, or independently verify it.
So, if I say "We can never know the exact value of Pi", or "We can't know the position and momentum of a quantum particle exactly", those are facts.

They may also be true right now, but they were not hundred(s) of years ago.
Facts are information, truths are feelings, like love/hate/etc, that defy definition due to theirsubjectivity.

Edit: The above opinion is truthful, because, as I've stated, that is how I use the terms; it is certainly not a fact that every one does the same.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by MigL

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But the true value of Pi, for me or @sethoflagos , might be 3.14159 or 22/7, while for Suresh Kumar Sharma ( Indian ) who can recite the value of Pi to 70030 digits, from memory, in 17 hours and 14 minutes, my value is very far from true.

Different people have different truths; facts are the same for everyone.

Disagree.

If all subjects answer honestly and without error, then their actual statements may vary in detail according to circumstance, but all responses will be both true and mutually consistent.

Obviously, if someone offers a precise value, then their claims are probably false. If another defines pi as some applicable zeta function, they are providing a tautology of no information value (not exactly a lie but... )

Consider this:

It is a fact that I have a book in my library entitled Organic Chemistry.

I expect it to be the truth for exchemist , sethoflagos, charony and others.

It may be the truth that their books are the same as mine.

But my book is by McMurry, yet theirs may be by another author.

Even if their book is by McMurry it still may not be the same as mine since mine is the fourth edition.

Even if theirs is the same edition, they books may not be considered the same, just two copies of the one book.

So I think one reason to have different words is to be able to express different concepts, both separately and in combination.