User:The Tortuga

Pedantry
a fact (is)...A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct (or disproven and thus shown to be incorrect) on the basis of some evidence, generally by other facts and popular opinion coupled with life effecting beliefs, and social behavior.

So, on this definition, if a statement is not proven, it is not a fact? Are you sure? Furthermore, if I assert that the sky is green, since this can be disproven on the basis of the evidence, you claim that it is a fact? I think the wording needs work. Banno 21:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. A fact is, by definition, true; if it is not true, it is not a fact.  A factual claim or a statement of fact is a claim or statement that purports to be true, not a claim or statement that can be proven or disproven.  "A statement of an event or condition where the statement can be proven and shown to be correct" is a good definition, but if this statement can be disproven and shown to be incorrect, then it is a mistake, an error, a falsehood, a lie, or an untruth; not an oxymoronic "false fact".  JHCC &#91;&#91;User talk:JHCC&#124;(talk)]] 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have heard about "false facts" in school work since elementary school, but even if such discussions were based on incorrect information or are otherwise irrelevant, "false fact" is still a legal term used in the United States (and perhaps elsewhere?). Ardric47 05:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

==Fact, hypothesis and theory==

This aspect of fact is woefully inadequate, considering it's linked from an article about a trial which touches on the issue of whether the theory of evolution is a "fact" or not:


 * In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data. A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct. One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

The above definition confuses "observed fact" with "theory which explains what is observed". I boiled the material in a test tube, and it turned a certain color - that is a fact. Every time material like this is boiled it will turn that color - that is a hypothesis. If enough researchers can replicate my results, scientists will regard the hypothesis as confirmed. If too many researchers get different results (and it usually only takes a one or two), the hypothesis will not be confirmed.

It also doesn't say enough about hypotheses regarding past events. How can we see a theory or hypothesis "is a fact" when we can't conduct experiments in the here and now? Uncle Ed 23:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a misconception of the term "experiment" on your part. We can very much do experiments in the here and now: We can make further excavations and see if they confirm or falsify the hypotheses. Any good hypothesis as a predictive character related to future findings. Whether these are through "lab experiments" or achaeological digging isn't really relevant. --OliverH 09:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that definition of scientific fact is right, either, since it seems to disregard proof and simply cite evidence. That might explain why unproven scientific facts always get treated as regular facts..

Removed the following from the article: This needs serious rewriting. JHCC (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In science, a fact is data supported by a scientific experiment. A fact is an honest observation. A scientific fact is an honest observation seen by many scientists. A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult to consider other interpretations of the data.  A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct.  One observation of any phenomenon does not prove anything.

Tagging this as OR and disputed
The article seems to contain a good deal of naive relativism:


 * Under no circumstance can an idea or fact be considered to be wholly and absolutely true at all times and under any given set of conditions and circumstances. It is the belief that facts have this ability to be absolutely true that allows people to kill and hurt other people.

In other words, we must not believe that anything is absolutely true, because if we do so we become accomplices to mayhem and murder.

I find this naive and implausible. Given that there are strongly held beliefs that may qualify, it still strikes me as an absurdity. I am wholly certain that Paris is the capital of France. I'm not prepared to kill or even assault anyone for that belief. Moreover, many facts are indeed absolutely true; and this is in fact strongest for social constructions, if only because many such beliefs can be resolved finally and absolutely by argument from authority: Paris is the capital of France because the French government says so. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The edits from 23:04, 25 May 2006 are not a definition of fact. Particularly the last two paragraphs are a rant. - Ken Geis 18:48 4, June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be cautious of facts. Facts can be used for different things, and should be constantly revisted. Take for instance the scientific fact taught in grade school, "there are 9 planets in the solar system". Upon further review, this scientific fact is now under review. Read this CNN snippet:

"It is now increasingly hard to justify calling Pluto a planet if UB313 is not also given this status," Bertoldi said.

The claims of a 10th planet have re-ignited a debate over just how many objects should be called planets -- there is no official definition.

By the way, New Orleans is a city in the US. However, it could have been wiped out, and then taken off the list of US cities. - [Oglio's Point]

Ironic
It is rather funny that the article on fact has a "factual" dispute. -- Jay  (Reply)  14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits
I culled out everything which stunk of original research and general ranting, and reorganized it a little bit. I saw nothing of encyclopedic value in the material I removed (nonsense about the timeless validity about the "facts of history" which any historian would laugh at). The article still stinks but if there are no objections I think we can remove the dispute tags. --Fastfission 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact and Perception
I read a point of view from a certain philsopher that I cannot recall, and I whole-heartedly agree with it. This philosopher wrote that he believed there was a very thin line between fact and sensational perception. Each human perceives the world differently from another. Take religion for example: religion by definition is a set of beliefs intended to make sense of the world. Though science and religion are nearly opposite, science is in somewhat the same nature in that sense. Science can't prove or dissprove there is a deity or many deities for that matter. But, neither can religion. Both are just different systems of perception. Generally, Christians believe God created the world and assert it as fact (as in being the only explanation) because they don't know the origins of the universe and they essentially believe Earth is the center of all creation. Scientists, however, have the general opinion that a being that has always been here may not exist because there is also the possibility that the universe began as a spec of matter that reacted and exploded to create the masses of stars, planets, gases, etc. So, scientists don't really know how the universe came to be either. What I believe is that fact is just a majority opinion of people who perceive a theory in the same way. So, really if you think about it, humans just seem to be wandering aimlessly about the Earth, just living life. However, if one has this same opinion, then I guess you could say this contrib has no point.Wolfranger 13:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact vs Theory
Before Columbus (& I mean long before Columbus) was "the Earth is round" a fact or a theory? Did it become less of a theory when the first photos of the Earth were taken from space? OR, was it always a fact and never a theory? How can this article ignore (at least in the lede) the relativity of facts? --JimWae 05:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)