Thread: Truth vs. Fact

I've discussed this with various people throughout my life and here's my take on it, at least from the standpoint of lies and truth:

Originally Posted by Spamtek

Surely truth and fact are synonyms...

Absolute truth, yes. But in the real world, truth is relative to the teller's knowledge. For example, I can believe that you went to the store and bought me some soda but drank it before you got home. That may be a false statement but if I think it's true then my saying so is not a lie. In fact, I can be dead wrong about that but still not be telling a lie. Perhaps the real truth is that you only said you did that. Perhaps I only assumed that because I saw some empty cans in your car.

Therefor, I'm telling the truth (not lying) yet the statement is completely false.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

Or can lies be truer than truth?

Conversely, maybe I thought that you bought me a soda but, since you didn't bring it back to me, I assume that you drank my soda on the way home. Rather than telling people that you drank my soda (which I believe to be the truth), I tell people that you forgot to get me my soda.

In this example, I told a lie but it's really the truth. The fact that I believe the truth to be other than what I stated is what makes my statement a lie. The real truth is that you simply forgot to buy it for me.

These are petty examples - I couldn't think of anything better at the moment - but the point is that "telling the truth/telling lies" and "being true/false" do not necessarily coincide. You can very well tell a lie but be correct. You can also tell the truth and be completely wrong. Being incorrect is not necessarily the same thing as lying.

For simplicities sake, I will accept you notion of fact, at least for the moment.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

"a verifiable observation about the world" sound good?

I guess I'll reserve the right to offer a new definition if I ever think its needed But, lets move on for now.

can truth, however you conceive of it, transcend fact, be an entity beyond it; can something be factually incorrect but true?

I think that this is the first place that you go astray, at least a little bit. I would modify this statement some to read: Something can be factually unprovable either way but still be true.

Lets take fact as something that can be proven by the material world. For every statement there is a contradictory statement.

This apple is red.
This apple is not red.

There are also contrary opposites, but its the contradictory statements we are concerned about. In the above case, we can take any given apple and we know that one of this statements will be true and factual, the other will not. (Principles of Non-Contradiction and Excluded Middle) For ANY pair of contradictory statements, we know that one MUST be true, and the other MUST be false from these principles.

So Consider:

God exists.
God does not exist.

One of these is true.
Neither of them are verifiable fact.

Furthermore, which statement is true or false is absolute. We can argue, but in the end ONE statement is absolutely true, the other is absolutely false.

...Or, conversely, factually correct but totally false?

I would say very firmly that this is false. If something is factually correct then it is true. The litmus test is to create a pair of contradictory statements and check.

The 'nam story in your example actually happened.
The 'nam story in your example did not actually happen.

The 'nam story in your example may have actually happened.
The 'nam story in your example may not have actually happened.

As you can see, wording is important, but for each pair one is false and one is true. If you can factually prove one, then the other is false. If neither of them can be factually proven, one of them still MUST be false.

For my case, I'll say this: I think the world is based upon a materialistic framework, or at least one that is not hospitable at all to the idea of spirits, souls, astral planes, OBEs, PSI powers, magic(k), etc. I honestly, really believe that none of these things exist. That is something I hold to be a fact.

Prove it.

Again, you are confused with the idea that if something cannot be factually proven it must be factually false. That is incorrect.

If you want to see this with something more simple imagine this: I have an apple covered up and in a box. I ask you if it is red, and you have two options:

The apple is red.
The apple is not red.

You cannot factually prove that the apple is red, that DOES NOT MEAN that the apple MUST not be red. It simply means that you do not know. One of the statements is still 100% true, and the other false. Fact has no importance, because while you cannot prove anything, you can not disprove it either. That doesn't change the fact that one of them is true and one is false.


As for some of these notions, I think that they are absurd, like OBE's. Other, however, I believe to be true. In fact, in another post (in the thread about body / soul) I made an argument for us having an immaterial soul. I would be happy to go into any of the claims in more detail or show you the arguments for the soul existing and being substantial.

In the case of the soul, it is something that I hold to be true with logic and reason, but it cannot be factually prove either way with your definition.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

"a verifiable observation about the world" sound good?

My only issue here would be our human reason and intellect. Are the principles of Non-Contradiction fact? They are not discovered in the material world, but you cant really argue against them. What about something that can be proven, but using logic? I guess it is fair to us your definition, in which case, fact has little relevance on the important questions on life, such as God, the afterlife, heaven and hell, souls, values, etc.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Absolute truth, yes. But in the real world, truth is relative to the teller's knowledge.

I am glad that you recognize absolute truth, bit you follow it with relativistic tendencies. :/

Relativism is the greatest mistake in philosophy that is becoming ever more popular today for some reason. The claim of relativism doesnt hold much water, and I think we can see this using your examples:

John bought a soda.
John did not buy a soda.

John claimed to buy a soda.
John did not claim to buy a soda.

John really thinks he bought a soda.
John does not really think he bought a soda.

As you can see, the second two sets being true or false have absolutly no importance to the first. John may claim, and actually believe that he bought a soda, but that has no impact on whether or not he actually bought a soda or not.

The perspective of the speaker has absolutly ZERO impact on the first statement being true or false.

I think that the reason for the rise of relativism is because our generation is very self-oriented. If we say something is true, who are you to tell me I am wrong! This is a foolish position that logic can prove false.

The fact that I believe the truth to be other than what I stated is what makes my statement a lie. The real truth is that you simply forgot to buy it for me.

He drank the soda.
He did not drink the soda.

I believe he drank the soda.
I do not believe he drank the soda.

Again, eliminate belief from philosophy! I want things that can be intellectually proven to be seen with the eye of my mind! I dont want 6 billion beliefs! I want 1 bit of truth!

There is only one truth. Even if we do not know it.
Albeit that the perception of the truth may be blurred by many things.
Perception is reality they say. So if one is to believe a lie or an exaggeration a mistake etc. That person is in a mind frame of the "truth".
So it is not the factual truth. To that particular individual it is the truth at that time.
It can remain the truth until they find out other wise and choose to accept it as truth or remain under the misconception that it still is the truth.

What you are eating is beef steak. Later to find out it is venison. Misguided truth.
The likely response would be anger. Although they never new the difference. Then to find out it REALLY was beef.
This tells you that people want to adhere to A truth.
Behold religion. Fact or fiction the truth is in their religion. They will choose this belief to be true regardless of any other conceived notion.

Originally Posted by mynameismichael

I am glad that you recognize absolute truth, bit you follow it with relativistic tendencies. :/

Relativism is the greatest mistake in philosophy that is becoming ever more popular today for some reason. The claim of relativism doesnt hold much water, and I think we can see this using your examples:

John bought a soda.
John did not buy a soda.

John claimed to buy a soda.
John did not claim to buy a soda.

John really thinks he bought a soda.
John does not really think he bought a soda.

As you can see, the second two sets being true or false have absolutly no importance to the first. John may claim, and actually believe that he bought a soda, but that has no impact on whether or not he actually bought a soda or not.

The perspective of the speaker has absolutly ZERO impact on the first statement being true or false.

I think that the reason for the rise of relativism is because our generation is very self-oriented. If we say something is true, who are you to tell me I am wrong! This is a foolish position that logic can prove false.



He drank the soda.
He did not drink the soda.

I believe he drank the soda.
I do not believe he drank the soda.

Again, eliminate belief from philosophy! I want things that can be intellectually proven to be seen with the eye of my mind! I dont want 6 billion beliefs! I want 1 bit of truth!

But that's why I make the distinction between true/false, which deals with fact, and telling the truth/lies.

That's why I say that one can be wrong but still not be lying and one can be correct but be lying. Truth and fiction are not the same thing as true and false. They are two seperate sets of qualifiers.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

But that's why I make the distinction between true/false, which deals with fact, and telling the truth/lies.

That's why I say that one can be wrong but still not be lying and one can be correct but be lying. Truth and fiction are not the same thing as true and false. They are two seperate sets of qualifiers.

I understand what you're trying to say, "gh," but there is a major factor you're missing out on.
The distinction comes in the wording of the person that's "not lying."

If I come back, without your coke in my hand, and you say "You drank my coke," because that's what you honestly believe, then your accusation is, actually, a lie.

If you say "I believe you drink my coke," that is the true statement. You would be stating your belief as a belief and, even if the belief is wrong, it is not a lie, because you are simply stating that that is your opinion. This is what so many people, as Michael was saying, forget, when trying to express their perception of a "fact."

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I understand what you're trying to say, "gh," but there is a major factor you're missing out on.
The distinction comes in the wording of the person that's "not lying."

But "lying" is when you say something you know to be incorrect. If you say something you honestly believe then, whether your facts are right or wrong, you still told "the truth" (i.e. you didn't lie). You were wrong but you didn't lie. Truth and fact are not the same thing; they can be but they don't have to be.

If I come back, without your coke in my hand, and you say "You drank my coke," because that's what you honestly believe, then your accusation is, actually, a lie.

My accusation may be wrong but it's not a "lie".

If you say "I believe you drink my coke," that is the true statement. You would be stating your belief as a belief and, even if the belief is wrong, it is not a lie, because you are simply stating that that is your opinion. This is what so many people, as Michael was saying, forget, when trying to express their perception of a "fact."

The bolded part is the key. When presenting something as fact, perception has a bearing on the outcome, yes. But being truthful (honest) isn't the same thing as being correct or in-correct. The distinction is subtle but, it is there.

Like if you say something that's incorrect while under oath in a court of law you can't be held for perjury - as long as you told the "truth" as far as your knowledge allows - even though your statements aren't factually correct.

"Why did you lie to me?"

"What? I didn't lie to you. I told you what I was told. Maybe my source is wrong but don't go accusing me of lying. I never knowingly misled you..."

Again, telling the truth or telling a lie is solely dependant upon perception and has little or no bearing on absolute fact. They aren't the same thing.

Again, I disagree...

Ok. Say, in court, the judge asks me:
"So you're saying that so-and-so was at Wal-Mart at the time of the crime?"

and I reply "Yes, he was."

If the truth is that I only heard he was there, or figured, logically, that so-and-so would have been there (knowing his hours, etc.) then my reply "Yes he was" is not true. I am not telling the truth.

The correct, and truthful, way to respond would be "I heard from someone else that he was there. I do not know, personally." Or even, more simply "I believe he was there." It seems trivial, I know, but it is, actually, the truth between fact and guesswork.

The truth, in that situation, would not be so simple as "Yes, he was there." Trying to answer it such a way would not be "telling the truth." It would be telling what you believe to be the truth, which is, in that case....not.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Again, I disagree...

Well, in that case I'll have to agree with you. But in everyday live, most things are more apparent and therefor don't require such concrete "proof" to consider yourself to be telling the truth. I've never lied on this site, for example, but I'm sure I've said things that are factually incorrect. But am I lying? No. Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

I understand that in the court example, truth isn't allowed to be hearsay or opinion. But again, there's a subtle distinction to be made between outright lying and being incorrect. I also see that the court example is a weak argument in this discussion.

I still say that "lying" is intentional or reckless deception and is not necessarily the same thing as actually being factually sound or not. There is, however, no denying that there is indeed ultimate, factual truth. We may not always know what that truth is. But "telling the truth" isn't really a matter of fact (in my opinion). It's more a presentation of personal belief and perception.

But we are really arguing semantics. We all know what it means to lie. And we all know what a fact is. We're just at odds over how the two entities interrelate with each other.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I still say that "lying" is intentional or reckless deception and is not necessarily the same thing as actually being factually sound or not. There is, however, no denying that there is indeed ultimate, factual truth. We may not always know what that truth is. But "telling the truth" isn't really a matter of fact (in my opinion). It's more a presentation of personal belief and perception.

But we are really arguing semantics. We all know what it means to lie. And we all know what a fact is. We're just at odds over how the two entities interrelate with each other.

Agreed.
If I were to count the number of marbles in a bag, and state that there were 59, then a machine were to count the marbles, behind me, and conclude there were 60, my miscount would not, and should not, be considered a lie. It was simply a mistake.
Although, if someone were to ask me if I told the "truth" when I said that there were 59 marbles in the bag, though I did not "lie" I could not simply answer with "yes, I told the truth." It would be my responsibility to say "I said what I believed to be truth. I gave an honest answer on the count that I took." The count may have been wrong, but I would have answered with what I believed to be true. Though, I would have to concede that "59 marbles being in the bag" is not the truth, it was a miscalculation.

Now, if the question is "are you telling the truth, that you counted 59 marbles?" Then yes, I could answer "Yes, that is the truth."

It's all in the question, but to be wrong is to be forced to concede that the statement you made was not the truth, it was "the truth, to the best of your knowledge," which is different.

But, like you said, no one could call you a liar, for getting something factually wrong, if you truly believed it.

Are yall trying to confuse everyone ;p Get different names

I think yall are both saying the same thing pretty much, I think makeing simple sets of statements will resolve any dispute though. Then there is no questions as to if its a belief or a thought or a question of the actual fact

Well...

I wasn't actually asking people to hold the dictionary definitions up to logical scrutiny and come in with a "Yes/no, my mathematics tell me so!" sort of answer. I guess I was intending a slightly more personal, anecdotal, "from my experience I think X" sort of response - asking, in essence, if truth can mean more than just a verifying checkmark next to a piece of data. I'll respond first, though:

(Oneironaut's/gh's battle over telling the truth)

I think this is mostly a game of semantics here, but as the chips are falling right now I'd have to say I agree with 'naut. A lie and a truth are statements that, respectively, either don't or do line up with the details of a commonly agreed-upon reality, regardless of the speaker's conviction in the matter. If I tell you Carl's Pita Place is left of the fork in the road when it's really to the right, then to me I have lied to you, intentionally or not. But I'm just regurgitating what you guys have already said. I don't have much more to add, and I'm certainly not trained in logic enough to make fancy proofs like all the rest of you to make my point.

Originally Posted by mynameismichael

So Consider:

God exists.
God does not exist.

One of these is true.
Neither of them are verifiable fact.

Furthermore, which statement is true or false is absolute. We can argue, but in the end ONE statement is absolutely true, the other is absolutely false.

While I can definitely agree that in an absolute framework what you've said is correct, I suppose I suffer from relativism as well and because of that can't manage to grok the worth of saying that "we know one of them is true, but we don't know which." To me the only perspective a person can live their lives from is a subjective one, one severed from our absolute reality, and since the assignment of truthhood and falsity to a pair of contradictory statements is impossible for me (apart from absolute reality), I can't see the relevance in even bothering to say that one is true and one is false. Making statements about an apple in a box seems ridiculous to me because I can't see the apple, the apple is irrelevant in that state! We can say all we want about it, but it makes no difference until we take the lid off and the apple becomes a part of our universe, at which point its redness is observable, and obvious, and either true or false as we see it. What am I saying? I'm not sure; I just don't see the point in making claims about things we don't anything about yet, because if we don't know anything about them then they're irrelevant to our situation. Say as much as you want about the apple when it's in the box, but when it's done, the lid's still on and nothing's changed. So what was the effort for?

Originally Posted by Howie

It can remain the truth until they find out other wise and choose to accept it as truth or remain under the misconception that it still is the truth.

I contest your claim that one either "remains under the misconception" or turns to embrace the real truth, or a truer version of the same illusion. How do we make that quantum leap between what we think is true and what is true... no matter how many times we change our minds and refine our ideas, we never get to the summit where our ideas of the truth and the truth itself become the same entity.

Segueing from that and returning to what I meant for my post to be about a little, if we're always going to be wrong about the truth - our senses deceive, we're always apart from the reality we experience, can never be sure, etc etc - then why should we let conventional notions of true and false (an observable fact and not an observable fact) get in the way of using them for a purpose that at least gives us something more than endless uncertainty and at best a hazy vision of what most people, most of the time, think is true? Like I said, then, I find metaphysical excursions to be truer than mundane reality, even though there's no evidence for them - for me, I call true not what I think might be true in absolute reality because I'll never know that, no matter my convictions, but instead call true what I find... I suppose most beautiful, most poetic, what ought to be true rather than what I think is. I ended the post with "is this just stupid solipsism, hedonism, a self-serving crock of crap?"

I have relativist/subjectivist views that maybe I should elucidate better before hoping you might get my point. I apologize for mostly refusing to fight on the same level of detail and analysis as all you fine combatants, since in the end I see it all meeting the same dead end, and the things that really matter - how you're faring in the only life you have to live, and how you're using your faculties to better yourself - left to stagnate in the meantime.

I don't think I'm woo-woo enough to go in the Beyond Dreaming forum yet, but I don't think I'm analytical enough here to suit the tastes of the Philosophy regulars. Well, respond as you will. I tried to clarify myself a little, at least.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

When presenting something as fact, perception has a bearing on the outcome, yes. But being truthful (honest) isn't the same thing as being correct or in-correct. The distinction is subtle but, it is there.

Actually, I didn't see this line in "gh's"s post. (One of the downfalls to being forced to get only quick peeks at the forum, while at work) That, I completely agree with and, had I seen it (or been able to do anything other than just skim through the posts, before replying) I would have seen where the disconnect was, a little sooner.

Originally Posted by mynameismichael

Are yall trying to confuse everyone ;p Get different names

Well...if it were up to me.......heh...nevermind.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

Say as much as you want about the apple when it's in the box, but when it's done, the lid's still on and nothing's changed. So what was the effort for?

Simply because it's fun to speculate.
And (now that I'm home and I've had a chance to go back over the thread, in detail) I see what you're saying. There is nothing wrong with believing something to be true, that you cannot verify, based on speculation - even in terms of the metaphysical. The thing about speculation, though, when it comes right down to it, is that anyone who speculates on anything must be willing to concede to the possibility that they are incorrect. What begins so many arguements - especially when it comes to the metaphysical and/or religion - is that people often get defensive when their speculations are being contested. They respond in a way that says "if you believe that what I believe isn't true, then you are wrong." They defend their opinion as if it is fact, and often become combative in upholding that belief. This, I believe, is a logical error. When painted into a corner, they will often (finally) say "Well, sure, there is the possibility that I'm wrong" but that statement goes against the nature (and conviction) of their initial argument and, as in the case of atheists vs. theists, could stop many heated arguments, if acknowledged, in the beginning of their debates.

You have given lots of food for thought I just have a few points and questions.

Originally Posted by Spamtek

I suppose I suffer from relativism as well and because of that can't manage to grok the worth of saying that "we know one of them is true, but we don't know which."

The reason that I made a point about fact being called only something that we can clearly prove is because I believe we can prove several things without our five senses. For simplcities sake, leave aside the ultimate, yet unproveable, question, of God. Instead start with something that we can not prove with an obervable fact, but are able to clearly see with the eye of our mind. One of my favorites that I commented on very recently was the question of our body and soul. I tried to maintain that the soul is immaterial, something that cannot be proven with observation, but something that we can see with the eye of our mind (intellectually).

Originally Posted by Spamtek

To me the only perspective a person can live their lives from is a subjective one, one severed from our absolute reality,

I think if you eliminate some of your adjectives you will see something rather odd (at least for me)...

"To me the only perspective a person can live their lives from one... severed from... reality"

Certainly, there are some questions are out there that seem big, they are. But they are part of our reality. If you would allow me to use God as an example. If He exists, He is part of reality. There is no subjective way around it. It is not up to personal opinion.

[quote]
and since the assignment of truthhood and falsity to a pair of contradictory statements is impossible for me (apart from absolute reality), I can't see the relevance in even bothering to say that one is true and one is false.
[/qoute]

I think here you are on a track very different from most relativists. You say that you seek something that is more true than fact. The eye of the mind can lead to a great deal of truth that is not verifiable.

Making statements about an apple in a box seems ridiculous to me because I can't see the apple, the apple is irrelevant in that state!

Perhaps that apple is useless. But take the example I used before, is the conscious self material or immaterial. This has some HUGE real life implications. If the soul is immaterial, it cannot fall apart. We say that when the body falls apart it dies... what would happen to the immaterial soul if the material body dies? Perhaps it lives one?

The philosophical school of metaphysics starts with the most simple questions, and eventually builds up to the most ultimate questions. They do not build on hard fact, but build on us being able to see things intellectually. Things that we cannot prove, but we still hold to be true. This is something that you are already doing! You say "The only way to live is subjectively". Should we absolutely stick to that rule that you believe to be true but cant verify!?

I don't think I'm woo-woo enough to go in the Beyond Dreaming forum yet, but I don't think I'm analytical enough here to suit the tastes of the Philosophy regulars. Well, respond as you will. I tried to clarify myself a little, at least.

Hehe- I dont think I'll ever be 'woo-woo enough to go there. I believe in a great power of the mind, but based in a physical universe. Also, seems to me like 'AP' is simple a type of an LD.

Anyways, I hope I got to some of your points at least Let me know!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Although, if someone were to ask me if I told the "truth" when I said that there were 59 marbles in the bag, though I did not "lie" I could not simply answer with "yes, I told the truth." It would be my responsibility to say "I said what I believed to be truth. I gave an honest answer on the count that I took." The count may have been wrong, but I would have answered with what I believed to be true. Though, I would have to concede that "59 marbles being in the bag" is not the truth, it was a miscalculation.

Now, if the question is "are you telling the truth, that you counted 59 marbles?" Then yes, I could answer "Yes, that is the truth."

It's all in the question, but to be wrong is to be forced to concede that the statement you made was not the truth, it was "the truth, to the best of your knowledge," which is different.

Alright, I can see that we're actually on the same page here. We're just reading different paragraphs. In practice, the "I believe" and the "To the best of my knowledge" are implied and are not explicitly stated.

And I'm guilty of peeking during work too so, I'll have to fully read the posts after my last one as I get time throughout the day.

there is no truth...

Well I wanted to read through all of these posts but I couldn't. The reason why I couldn't was because every one that I did read was so full of misinformation and logical fallacies that I was unable to continue.

The first post says that the concept of 1+1=2 is both true and fact, but unfortunately it is far from fact and not even necessarily true. In base 2 for instance, 1+1=10. The only fact available from this statement is that there is no such thing as mathematical truth.

Also, someone claimed that among the statements,

"god exists"
and
"god doesn't exist"

one must be true and one must be false, but this of course is wrong. If you try to explain this idea to any Buddhists, they will flatly disagree and inform you that your concept of god both exists and is non-existent simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well I wanted to read through all of these posts but I couldn't. The reason why I couldn't was because every one that I did read was so full of misinformation and logical fallacies that I was unable to continue.

The first post says that the concept of 1+1=2 is both true and fact, but unfortunately it is far from fact and not even necessarily true. In base 2 for instance, 1+1=10. The only fact available from this statement is that there is no such thing as mathematical truth.

Also, someone claimed that among the statements,

"god exists"
and
"god doesn't exist"

one must be true and one must be false, but this of course is wrong. If you try to explain this idea to any Buddhists, they will flatly disagree and inform you that your concept of god both exists and is non-existent simultaneously.

You actually raise good points but they are valid only as long as terms are left undefined. For example, the number base. Sure, if you alter the maximum digit value - as in base 10 vs. base 2 - you get differing results. But, given that we are assuming a base 10 system, we can consider 1+1 to equal 2 an undeniably true statement within the context of base 10.

That being said, if terms are left undefined then yes, you have a very good point.

actually there are plenty of situations in which 1+1 will not equal 2 in any base system. Take for instance, 1 body of water added to 1 body of water equals 1 body of water.

The point is, mathematics is not and was never meant to hold any truths. Mathematics is no more than a language designed to describe certain aspects of the world that we perceive to the best of our ability. Many forms of mathematics are actually built on the concept that they are not accurate, but they are the closest we can currently come (see:calculus).

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

actually there are plenty of situations in which 1+1 will not equal 2 in any base system. Take for instance, 1 body of water added to 1 body of water equals 1 body of water.

The point is, mathematics is not and was never meant to hold any truths. Mathematics is no more than a language designed to describe certain aspects of the world that we perceive to the best of our ability. Many forms of mathematics are actually built on the concept that they are not accurate, but they are the closest we can currently come (see:calculus).

More excellent points. Glad you're here