What is a Fact?

[VVilliam]

Wow, on the same thread

Yes. Facts can change. ...

... in most cases, facts are subject to change.

A fact never changes. If what is thought to be a, "fact," changes, it was never a fact.

Please provide even one example of a fact that has ever changed. [The fact that it rained yesterday, is still a fact today, even though it is sunny today. The fact is, It did rain yesterday, and that will be true forever. Facts never change.]

You have taken a portion of my post and commented on that. As a fact, this makes your reply out of context to my own.

You are using a form of semantics in order to accomplish that.

An accepted fact about something can and does change as circumstance changes. Perhaps you are conflating 'fact' with 'truth' when you wrote "a fact never changes. If what is thought to be a fact changes, it was never a fact."

This works well for truth, because something cannot be considered truth, simply by thinking it is truth.

But all in all - you complaint is superficial...[lexical semantics]

[Veritas Aequitas]

Wow, on the same thread

Yes. Facts can change. ...

... in most cases, facts are subject to change.

A fact never changes. If what is thought to be a, "fact," changes, it was never a fact.

Please provide even one example of a fact that has ever changed.
[The fact that it rained yesterday, is still a fact today, even though it is sunny today. The fact is, It did rain yesterday, and that will be true forever. Facts never change.]

I also agreed facts and even their respective referents can change.

• P1 The only absolute constant is change,
  P2 Since facts are never absolute constant,
  C1 Facts do change.

Here is one example where a fact [scientific- astronomy] did change, i.e.

• Scientific Fact: 1390 to 2006: Pluto is the ninth planet from the Sun.
  Pluto was discovered by Clyde Tombaugh in 1930 and declared to be the ninth planet from the Sun.
  
  Fact changed to:
  
  Scientific Fact: 2006 to Present: Pluto is a dwarf planet - or a planet per se.
  After 1992, its status as a planet was questioned following the discovery of several objects of similar size in the Kuiper belt. In 2005, Eris, a dwarf planet in the scattered disc which is 27% more massive than Pluto, was discovered. This led the International Astronomical Union (IAU) to define the term "planet" formally in 2006, during their 26th General Assembly. That definition excluded Pluto and reclassified it as a dwarf planet.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

Note the supposedly referent [a body of rocks, sand, ice, etc.] named 'Pluto' as with any other objects by default is constantly changing.

In any case, the 'referent' is illusory at the fundamental level.
What is the supposedly referent is an emergence from reality in which subjects are part and parcel of.

[The fact that it rained yesterday, is still a fact today, even though it is sunny today.
The fact is, It did rain yesterday, and that will be true forever. Facts never change.]

The above is too simple-minded from perspective of philosophy.

Whose fact it that?
Yours, Tom, Dick or Harry's?

That it rained yesterday can only be confirmed by the meteorological scientists.
There are lots of situations where the meteorologists had changed their conclusions and facts on weather conditions.

[Skepdick]

A fact never changes. If what is thought to be a, "fact," changes, it was never a fact.

There is nothing that doesn't change - therefore there are no such things as facts.

Perhaps you are confusing facts with history? History doesn't change. Facts certainly do.

Please provide even one example of a fact that has ever changed. [The fact that it rained yesterday, is still a fact today, even though it is sunny today. The fact is, It did rain yesterday, and that will be true forever. Facts never change.]

Q.E.D You don't understand how time works.

"It's raining" was a fact yesterday.
"it's raining" is not a fact today.

"It was raining yesterday" is a fact today. It will stop being a fact tomorrow.
"It was sunny yesterday" will become a fact tomorrow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics

[RCSaunders]

You have taken a portion of my post and commented on that. As a fact, this makes your reply out of context to my own.

The context of your statement, "... in most cases, facts are subject to change," in no way changes the clear meaning of the statement. This is so obvious you have now corrected your statement:

An accepted fact about something can and does change ..."

Which is still no quite correct. The fact doesn't change, only one's acceptance of it. But you make it worse by adding:

Perhaps you are conflating 'fact' with 'truth' when you wrote "a fact never changes. If what is thought to be a fact changes, it was never a fact."

This works well for truth, because something cannot be considered truth, simply by thinking it is truth.

What do you think truth is? If a proposition states something is a fact, that, indeed, is a fact, it is a true proposition. If a proposition states something is a fact, that, indeed, is not a fact, it is not a true proposition. There is no other meaning of truth. You cannot divorce facts from truth.

[RCSaunders]

A fact never changes. If what is thought to be a, "fact," changes, it was never a fact.

There is nothing that doesn't change - therefore there are no such things as facts.

Perhaps you are confusing facts with history? History doesn't change. Facts certainly do.

Please provide even one example of a fact that has ever changed. [The fact that it rained yesterday, is still a fact today, even though it is sunny today. The fact is, It did rain yesterday, and that will be true forever. Facts never change.]

Q.E.D You don't understand how time works.

"It's raining" was a fact yesterday.
"it's raining" is not a fact today.

"It was raining yesterday" is a fact today. It will stop being a fact tomorrow.
"It was sunny yesterday" will become a fact tomorrow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics

Defense Lawyer: "It is true, your Honor, that my client, Sam Pickpocket, struck Bill Victim with a rock, causing him to die a month ago. That was the fact then, and Sam was guilty then. But facts change, as any philosopher can tell you, so it is not a fact that Sam killed Bill Victim today, so he's no longer guilty.

That's your argument.

[Skepdick]

Defense Lawyer: "It is true, your Honor, that my client, Sam Pickpocket, struck Bill Victim with a rock, causing him to die a month ago. That was the fact then, and Sam was guilty then. But facts change, as any philosopher can tell you, so it is not a fact that Sam killed Bill Victim today, so he's no longer guilty.

That's your argument.

That's not even close to my argument.

That is your strawman of my argument.

[FlashDangerpants]

Defense Lawyer: "It is true, your Honor, that my client, Sam Pickpocket, struck Bill Victim with a rock, causing him to die a month ago. That was the fact then, and Sam was guilty then. But facts change, as any philosopher can tell you, so it is not a fact that Sam killed Bill Victim today, so he's no longer guilty.

That's your argument.

That's not even close to my argument.

That is your strawman of my argument.

Your argument was in such blatant bad faith that it cannot be subject to a strawman as nothing could weaken your claim. Through either laziness, dishonesty or outrageous stupidity you you took his definite description of a specific today and swapped it for an indefinite nonspecific today. You have no standing to complain about any treatment you receive in response to that sort of total shit.

[Skepdick]

Your argument was in such blatant bad faith that it cannot be subject to a strawman as nothing could weaken your claim. Through either laziness, dishonesty or outrageous stupidity you you took his definite description of a specific today and swapped it for an indefinite nonspecific today.

Precisely moron. Define "today" and "yesterday'.

You keep tripping up over temporal paradoxes because your logic doesn't do time.
And when you keep ignoring time, you can't coherently say anything about anything in this universe.

Something that is deemed "factual" in one framework for one purpose, may or may not be a "factual" in another framework for a different purpose.

And we sure have ourselves two frameworks on the table. One that treats time as absolute and one that treats time as relative.

That which you are calling "facts" is history. Memories. Nothing more. They may have HAPPENED (past tense) they are no longer HAPPENING (present tense).

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, well now we've established this has nothing to do with what anyone is discussing here, I don't care Skepdick, your bad faith argument is just there to be rejected and your conversation hijack can go the same way.

As things stand, for anyone who isn't a raging egomaniac like you, RC's objection there was perfectly fine.

[Skepdick]

Okay, well now we've established this has nothing to do with what anyone is discussing here, I don't care Skepdick, your bad faith argument is just there to be rejected and your conversation hijack can go the same way.

You mean it has nothing to do with the OP which is titled "What is a fact?"

And you keep insisting that "facts" and "time" are separate issues?

OK!

Fucking idiot.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, well now we've established this has nothing to do with what anyone is discussing here, I don't care Skepdick, your bad faith argument is just there to be rejected and your conversation hijack can go the same way.

You mean it has nothing to do with the OP which is titled "What is a fact?"

And you keep insisting that "facts" and "time" are separate issue?

OK!

Fucking idiot.

Don't be such a pissy little bitch.

[Skepdick]

Don't be such a pissy little bitch.

That is LITERALLY the distinction between Philosophy and Science.

The idea of "timelesness" is bullshit.

Without time you can't account for system dynamics. Or any dynamics really.

Pussy little Philosopher bitch

[FlashDangerpants]

That is LITERALLY the distinction between Philosophy and Science.

For your incredibly narrow view of the world that might be true. But so what?
There has to be some distinction between them, they aren't the same thing.

[Skepdick]

For your incredibly narrow view of the world that might be true. But so what?
There has to be some distinction between them, they aren't the same thing.

My "view of the world" is as broad as can be! Language is a tool which is used differently by different people.
Drawing; or ignoring distinctions is what thinking is at its foundation!

ANY two things can be "the same" if you abstract away enough of their differences.
ANY two things can be "different" by virtue of them being two things.

This applies even to periods in time. The 19th century was the same as the 20th century in some aspects; and different in other aspects.

Where you land on the spectrum of "sameness" and "difference" is a function of your pragmatics. It's a function of WHY do you want to assert "sameness" or "difference" ?

[VVilliam]

What do you think truth is? If a proposition states something is a fact, that, indeed, is a fact, it is a true proposition. If a proposition states something is a fact, that, indeed, is not a fact, it is not a true proposition. There is no other meaning of truth. You cannot divorce facts from truth.

As with a lot of things, if ones premise is [such and such] then one can argue in relation to the premise, and be correct.

Such is the case as language can and often is used as a device of limitation. If the word truth and the word fact describe the same, then why not use one or the other, rather than have both?

Perhaps it is so we can remain confused and argue semantics?

I have better things to do in that case. I am happy for you to believe whatever you want to about this, as it appears to make no difference in relation to anything of importance...