9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How many facts do you actually know?

Lots.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Given how much knowledge we're sitting on, can you list more than 10?

You don't give me enough credit.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't want to get all solipsistic, but this is a fundamental question of science/philosophy and is ill served by semantics.

Agree.
Other than establishing a standard for terminology, semantics are a reflection of the different uses of language, not differences in the science/philosophy they attempt to describe.

14 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I could recite facts, like we're having this discussion on a science forum, ad infinitum. Whether any of those facts are germane to any particular discussion or valid for describing reality is a different matter. One thing I would call a fact is that no two humans think exactly alike in every situation. It seems to me that this makes everyone's reality slightly (or even pretty radically) different.

I did say I didn't want to get all solipsistic, but it was kinda my point throughout this thread, whilst I realise solipsism is no way to understand reality, it is a fundamental position for scientific enquiry, if one doesn't personally witness a fact/truth one is reliant on a potentially flawed editor, of knowledge, to discern a fact from a fiction.

I'm not suggesting that Venus doesn't exist bc I'm not currently in orbit with eyes on, all I'm saying is, be careful when you demand that a fact is immutable bc of what you're are told, by a trusted yet fallable human.

On 7/17/2026 at 12:52 PM, dimreepr said:

I don't want to get all solipsistic, but this is a fundamental question of science/philosophy and is ill served by semantics.

For me at least, it goes beyond that.

Positive, constructive relationships are built on trust (again, that same 'sturdy and reliable as an oak' Germanic etymology). Fundamental to this understanding is that in all serious and significant matters, each partner can rely on the other's word being true as both understand that to mean.

What point is your science or philosophy if you give no one any grounds for believing your word? Especially, if you broadcast an opinion that you regard the word of everyone else as worthless.

Game theory has been mentioned. Here's my take on it. Tell me one truth, and I'll probably take your next statement on trust. Tell me one lie, and you're blocked out for good. Tough love, but that's how it is.

22 hours ago, MigL said:

Other than establishing a standard for terminology, semantics are a reflection of the different uses of language, not differences in the science/philosophy they attempt to describe.

Very clear distinction drawn there. +1

No how about this for a clear difference between truth and fact?

It is the truth that the weight of an adult ringed plover lies somewhere between 55 and 75 grammes.

It is a fact that this specific adult ringed plover weighs 62.3 grammes.

Facts are specific, truths may be more loosely described.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

It is the truth that the weight of an adult ringed plover lies somewhere between 55 and 75 grammes.

It is a fact that this specific adult ringed plover weighs 62.3 grammes.

How about this slight rewording:

Published data indicate that >99.7% of weight measurements for adult ringed plover lie between 55 and 75 grammes.

This adult ringed plover weighed 62.3 +/- 0.1 grammes.

Taking these figures on trust (or possibly by checking the references), we could well agree that both statements are true. We could equally well agree that both statements are factual.

( sorry, looking up what a plover is )

Ahh! Smallish wading bird, that returns to signal Spring's arrival.
Today I learned.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Facts are specific, truths may be more loosely described.

You could also say "I have never seen a plover heavier than 60 gms.
And it could very well be true.

But it is a fact that
"the weight of an adult ringed plover lies somewhere between 55 and 75 grammes"

On 7/3/2026 at 1:25 PM, swansont said:

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?

To me facts are just information. It is made true by the fact that you believe it. That truth may be correct or incorrect. But you are basing your life on these truths. The truths being what you believe to be correct.

This is complicated by misinformation. Facts become untrue and truth is blurred. For instance when Trump says Iran wants to make a deal there are probably Iranians that agree. Bombing continues so there are those in power that don’t want a deal. Both are true both are false.

It is like computer language conditions: and, or, nor, if then, else…

I read this sentence in a book today:

“Where it’s ok to stray from the path or stay on the path.”

How can opposites both be true. If they were both true they wouldn’t be opposites.

Then there is the case of knowing the truth and for some reason doing the opposite. Iran probably be better off with a deal but how do they except a deal that wouldn’t change the entire country?

10 hours ago, MigL said:

( sorry, looking up what a plover is )

Ahh! Smallish wading bird, that returns to signal Spring's arrival.
Today I learned.

You could also say "I have never seen a plover heavier than 60 gms.
And it could very well be true.

But it is a fact that
"the weight of an adult ringed plover lies somewhere between 55 and 75 grammes"

I disagree that the range as stated is a fact.

11 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

How about this slight rewording:

Both responses help demonstrate the many ways something can be expressed, all with subtly different meanings.

I don't think MigL's version is specific enough to be a fact since we have not measured the weight of every ringed plover, nor is it inconceivable that a particularly heavy or starved bird might turn up.

If we said "It is a fact that 3 lies between 2 and 4" that would qualify as a fact.
But the weight of plovers is the truth a far as we known it.

The actual figures came from Google AI by the way so should we trust that ?

8 hours ago, Trurl said:

To me facts are just information. It is made true by the fact that you believe it. That truth may be correct or incorrect. But you are basing your life on these truths. The truths being what you believe to be correct.

So long as you are careful enough in specify that information as noted above.

Equally you can note that some statement is you best estimate, rather than saying "I believe it to be true " as that allows the possibility that you may be wrong. Using this phraseolgy also removes the need for binary choices.

Edited July 19Jul 19 by studiot

16 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Positive, constructive relationships are built on trust (again, that same 'sturdy and reliable as an oak' Germanic etymology). Fundamental to this understanding is that in all serious and significant matters, each partner can rely on the other's word being true as both understand that to mean.

I'm sure Bonnie and Clyde would agree.

16 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

For me at least, it goes beyond that.

Positive, constructive relationships are built on trust (again, that same 'sturdy and reliable as an oak' Germanic etymology). Fundamental to this understanding is that in all serious and significant matters, each partner can rely on the other's word being true as both understand that to mean.

What point is your science or philosophy if you give no one any grounds for believing your word? Especially, if you broadcast an opinion that you regard the word of everyone else as worthless.

Game theory has been mentioned. Here's my take on it. Tell me one truth, and I'll probably take your next statement on trust. Tell me one lie, and you're blocked out for good. Tough love, but that's how it is.

What's that got to do with my statement, science needs ambiguous language (sarcasm), besides what level of lie is your binary cut off point set at?

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

To me facts are just information. It is made true by the fact that you believe it. That truth may be correct or incorrect. But you are basing your life on these truths. The truths being what you believe to be correct.

Facts are things that are true regardless of whether you believe them. A truth that is incorrect is not a truth. If veracity doesn’t matter what’s the point? No information is conveyed by labeling something as true.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

This is complicated by misinformation. Facts become untrue and truth is blurred. For instance when Trump says Iran wants to make a deal there are probably Iranians that agree. Bombing continues so there are those in power that don’t want a deal. Both are true both are false.

Misinformation is false. It does not make facts untrue, since they were never facts or true to begin with.

Trump is lying; what he says is untrue. Casting this as “some agree” is warping the description to force it to fit here. “Iran” in this context is the country, the political entity, so it means the leaders empowered to speak and act, not the people.

It’s like when Obi-Wan tells Luke that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered his father, and then they had to warp this into a metaphorical description because they wanted to do sequels. It was only “true from a certain perspective” if you decide you can change the meaning of the words, which is equivocation (i.e. a deceptive practice)

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

It is like computer language conditions: and, or, nor, if then, else…

I read this sentence in a book today:

“Where it’s ok to stray from the path or stay on the path.”

How can opposites both be true. If they were both true they wouldn’t be opposites.

Being mutually exclusive only means you can’t do both, but it doesn’t make one true and the other false.

9 hours ago, Trurl said:

Then there is the case of knowing the truth and for some reason doing the opposite.

I don’t see how that affects whether something is true.

It’s true that smoking causes cancer and people do it anyway. The actions have no impact on that truth.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm sure Bonnie and Clyde would agree.

Rhetorical deflection: truth value irrelevant

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

What's that got to do with my statement, science needs ambiguous language (sarcasm),

God only knows: too incoherent to parse.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

besides what level of lie is your binary cut off point set at?

In my world truth is absolute.

However, general speech often requires some interpretation to work out what is actually being said (see examples above). Take the old chestnut from Vic Reeves:

88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot

Clearly, no one (except an American tee-hee) could take this statement at face value. Yet beneath the layers of humour there is some truth being spoken. In this case about the honesty of commercial advertising if I remember correctly. "6 out of 10 cat owners said their pets preferred MouseyBitz over Slug Knacker", or some such nonsense.

8 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

In my world truth is absolute.

That's ironic, for some...

Just now, dimreepr said:

That's ironic, for some...

Why?

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

Why?

Why not?

Just now, dimreepr said:

Why not?

Don't deflect: I'm asking you a straight question and demand an honest answer.

Why?

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

Don't deflect: I'm asking you a straight question and demand an honest answer.

Why?

Why should I, you haven't answered mine... 😉

23 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

In my world truth is absolute.

Is that a fact???

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why should I, you haven't answered mine... 😉

I said NO MORE DEFLECTION!

WHY!

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

I said NO MORE DEFLECTION!

WHY!

Please clarify your question...

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Please clarify your question...

Pray, why didst thou state that some may find my statement 'in my world, truth is absolute' ironic?

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

Pray, why didst thou state that some may find my statement 'in my world, truth is absolute' ironic?

It's satirical...

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's satirical...

In what respect?

Which of my vices are you calling out here?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That's ironic, for some...

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Why not?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Why should I, you haven't answered mine... 😉

Is that a fact???

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Please clarify your question...

54 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's satirical...

Seth is a consistently kind, helpful, and intelligent contributor here and deserves far more respect and courtesy than you’re currently showing him.

You made a comment and were asked (5x now?) to clarify it. If you are unable or unwilling to do so then it’s time to stop commenting entirely. I’ve seen you do better and am asking you to please do better again now.

I return you now to your regularly scheduled program.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why not?

Your tendency to make a statement and the run away when pressed on the details is really f@*%ing annoying.

It’s also a violation of rule 2.8; it’s rejecting open discussion of something that you introduced.

You don't post much, lately, @iNow , but when you do, you still manage to communicate relevant and important points.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Seth is a consistently kind, helpful, and intelligent contributor here and deserves far more respect and courtesy than you’re currently showing him.

You made a comment and were asked (5x now?) to clarify it. If you are unable or unwilling to do so then it’s time to stop commenting entirely. I’ve seen you do better and am asking you to please do better again now.

I return you now to your regularly scheduled program.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's satirical...

When you respond as you are doing now, it is like talking into a vacuum and makes one feel like they are wasting their time, draining the momentum of conversations to a standstill.