Facts can reflect truth, but are not equal to it. They can answer who, what, where, and when, but not usually the why when pertaining to actions.

Asked by: simpleman
Facts can reflect truth, but are not equal to it. They can answer who, what, where, and when, but not usually the why when pertaining to actions.
  • Facts are not equal to truths.

    Facts are, eventually, a product of human's observations. It is in itself biased, comes from a certain perspective that is limited, and sometimes with no way of being proven. Facts can be tampered with, twisted around, amputated and shown in a certain way that misleads people. Truth, however, should be a conclusion and an overall statement/judgement to the matters at hand, it differs from facts due to its very definition. We may get the facts relatively easily, but truths are usually harder to find.

  • Facts reflect real world. Truths reflect abstract concepts as well.

    Yes, I know what I say can be easily dismissed with another definition of "facts" and "truth". As long as the definitions are not included in the question, everybody is free to define them as they like. In my definition facts are subset of truths. Fact is something true related to the world around us. For example, it is a fact that the Sun is emitting electromagnetic waves. We refer to this fast saying that the Sun shines. 2+2=4 is a truth. It does not exist in reality, as it is abstract concept based on many specific facts. For example a specific fact will be if one man has 2 sheep and another man has 2 sheep, both have total 4 sheep. That instance is a fact and truth at the same time. The abstract 2+2=4 is only truth.

    The point made by OP that truths answer to the "why" question is invalid. There is no end to the chain of "why" questions. Every answer to a "why" question, that includes new information, can have another "why" question asked related to that new information. In other words, "truths" as OP sees them do not give us new information ever, thus they are useless.

  • Facts have a limited scope

    Facts are based upon observations and in some instances are really just inference to the best logical assumption. An example would be murder. We could establish when it occurred, how it occurred, what kind of object was used to commit it, but not why it occurred based on factual evidence or inference to the best logical assumption.
    This is why logic is employed in deliberation of or cconsideration of facts to posit a conclusion. It does occur to me however that there are people who take facts without consulting logic and assume whatever conclusion suits their fancy is somehow valid because it is supported by fact(s). Facts however, can and are obscured by those who use them for arbitrary purposes and selfish ends.

  • The fact is a truth and a truth is a fact.

    The Fool: Who writes this stupid Questions?

    You can substitute any sentence, with either word it will not change the meaning.

    It's a fact that I'm laughing, is no different than it is true that I am laughing...

    @ horrible Fortune cookie, Machine question makers

    Individual facts do not represent the Whole truth. Which is just common sense..By what it means to be "a" fact. And if the writer had some common sense he wouldn't ask questions that may actually make people dumber. By being asked.

    Wow, that's creepy..

  • No to the person posing this nonsense.

    Facts DO reflect truth, hence them being facts. As for the suggestion that facts do not explain why something occurs, of course they do, you just have to have the previously acquired understanding to work out the 'why'. A few hundred years ago, mankind thought rainbows were an apology from the almighty yet now, using facts, we can explain a rainbow through light refraction. A few hundred years ago, we assumed eruptions, tornadoes and other instances of the destructive forces of nature were acts of an angry god, facts now explain eruptions via tectonic activity. A why that has no fact behind it is merely a question waiting to be answered and no matter how poetic this answer is laced up, it is nonsense...That is a fact!

  • Sorry, but no.

    A very philosophical and eloquent question by the OP, but unfortunately it makes no sense to me. The Oxford Dictionary defines "fact" as "a thing that is known or proved to be true", so by pure definition of the word, facts are equal to truth. If they weren't, they wouldn't be facts.

    It's the same for the second part of the opinion. If it is fact that something happened for some reason (the why), then it has to be true. If it is not true for sure, it is no fact.

  • Statistically speaking this is....

    I find it better to say that the most frequent action, or the mean, median or mode action, is a factual comment. This is because saying that an infrequent action is a valid argument is unreliable and unproductive. For instance, hypothetically, a farmer says it is fact that an apple falls on a Tuesday because generally apples do fall on Tuesdays. Another farmer, despite factual evidence, claims that an apple falls on a Wednesday. The First farmer does better at the marketplace as he gets to the tree the day before, has more apples, and buy's the other guy's farm. The assumption that an apple falls on a Wednesday is therefore clearly wrong. Factual information based on a valid occurrence of an action is more reliable than another perception of the fact.

    Repetition of an event does not explain why the event occurs i agree, no one can say why the apple falls on a Tuesday. This information does explain why more people attend the market on a Tuesday however, to get more apples. Gathering factual information is therefore important in decision making processes, Although the presence of deception makes the whole issue more complicated as information gathered by other humans may be falsified.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.