Talk:Fact

Fact vs truth

I'll start by saying I'm not an expert in these things. But I would have hoped to see a deeper discussion here.

The word "fact" definitely does not imply truth. Fowler (perhaps in Modern English Usage) had a nice example of a sentence showing this. It was something like

Fowler's facts are wrong, so his advice is likely wrong as well.

But WP not being a dictionary, we don't necessarily have to talk about all meanings of the word; we want to discuss the concept of fact, presumably as philosophers use it.

So what distinction do philosophers make between fact and truth? I don't know. I would have hoped to find out from this article.

My intuition would be something like the following: Truth is ontological, fact is epistemological. Truth is just about the way things are, whether we can find out or not. To say something is a fact, on the other hand, we should already have found out.

As an example, if I say it is true that Jimmy Hoffa is dead, according to the disquotational theory of truth, I am saying neither more nor less than Jimmy Hoffa is dead. I am allowed to say Jimmy Hoffa is dead without proof, just because it's what I think, taking on myself the risk of being wrong, and therefore I am allowed to say it is true that Jimmy Hoffa is dead under the same terms.

However if I say it is a fact that Jimmy Hoffa is dead, I am expected to have proof, or at least know in general terms where such proof might be found. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As a minimum it seems this article should state that "fact" and "truth" are synonyms, or describe the distinction, and also include "truth" in the "see also" section. Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

My normal response to this sort of argument is to point out that Wikipedia simply reflects what the sources say, and to suggest trying to find a source supporting your preferred wording. In this case, however, the source ( http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fact ) says this:

• (n) fact (a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred) "first you must collect all the facts of the case"

• (n) fact (a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened) "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"

• (n) fact (an event known to have happened or something known to have existed) "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"

• (n) fact (a concept whose truth can be proved) "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

I don't see that source actually supporting the "truths" mentioned in "Facts can refer to truths...". " The phrase "a concept whose truth can be proved" is close but subtly different.

I would also question why that particular dictionary. Why not http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fact, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact or http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Partridge's example is easily read as a metaphorical use of "fact", ie

Your "facts" are wrong

Your so-called "facts" are wrong

etc. However such metaphors are usually kept separate from literal meaning. 1Z (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So first of all, I don't have a preferred wording; I think that was clear from what I said. In any case, though, dictionaries are extremely poor sources for encyclopedia articles. As I said a couple of times, we are not in the business of defining words; we're in the business of talking about the things the words refer to.

Anything sourced to a dictionary might almost as well not be sourced at all. What we need are secondary sources (a dictionary is more like a tertiary source) explaining what the concept of fact means in context; i.e. presumably what it means to philosophers. --Trovatore (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph upto the one that begins "My intuition" are what I have be thinking and arguing for. The only thing I can add is that, what we would have found out to conclude the fact could be an error; thus the fact ending up being false. A fact can therefore either be true or false. Vusi Dlamini (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that a link to Truth has been added to the first sentence of this article. It seems weird to me that we'd have a circular definition like this, as Truth links to Fact in the first sentence as well. I propose removing altering that first sentence, or at least removing the recursive link. FrancoTheo (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topics of the two articles, Truth and Fact, are closely related, so it makes sense that they should link to one another, with that link appearing early in each article. In my view, construing those links as a "circular definition" is only possible if one does not read beyond each article's first sentence. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks for that info, and I see your point about the relation between pages. One other aspect that I just realized is that this link to Truth breaks the long-standing phenomenon where clicking the first link of a wikipedia page eventually leads to Philosophy - see Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy. Not sure if this is something that should be considered in situations like this, but it is sad to see it get destroyed by a pretty small/trivial change. FrancoTheo (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Just plain Bill, which part of WP:NOTDICTIONARY does it say that circular definitions between two articles in their ledes is A-ok for an encyclopaedia, since an encyclopaedia is "not a dictionary"? If the two articles are truly about distinct concepts, there's no reason why the lede sentence of each has to say "A is B" and "B is A"; they should, instead, take the form "A is C" and "B is D", with C and D being reflective of the contents of each article. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:51E:ADFC:AB48:F127 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@FrancoTheo 2600:387:1:805:0:0:0:BF (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Change to lead

I’ve made a modification to the first sentence of the lead to match both our cited sources and academic understanding of facts and truth. The lead previously said that facts are things that are true. According to the cites and academic opinion, propositions, not facts, are the bearers of truth-values, and so it is propositions (and, secondarily, sentences, inscriptions, utterances, etc.) that can be true/false, not facts. Facts are what MAKE propositions true, but facts themselves cannot be true. I’m happy to discuss this, although I don’t anticipate an issue, since the RS do not claim that facts are bearers of truth-values. ThanksForHelping (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

In the legal arena, a fact is a datum offered to the court (via evidence/testimony) which is presumed to be true unless rebutted. That's why the court process includes "fact finding", which is the process of the authority (judge or jury) determining which facts are true. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fact (law) exists as a redirect; the definition at its target should be law-focused. Our lead sentence here should be generalized, not tailored to legal application. I think ThanksForHelping's Aug 28 version was superior. VQuakr (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I like "A fact is a statement that accurately describes reality" Lbeaumont (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it Problematic that if you play the "first-link" game on the 'Fact' page that you end up on the page for 'Feeling'?

"First-link" game is when you click the first link of an article. I have no other name for it, but almost all editors must have heard that when you click the first link of a majority of pages it ends up at the philosophy page.

I am not sure if this is considered vandalism or was intentionally done, or if I am having a personal epistemological crisis, but at the very least I suppose it deserves a section on the talk page. I am unsure of a solution for this.

The path in question is from Fact > Truth Value [links from 'True-False evaluation'] > Logic > Reason > Consciousness > Sentience > Feeling I am a Leaf (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Answer: No, it isn't problematic, and no solution is needed, because there is no problem. WP pages should be edited based on encyclopedic goals, without worrying about this trivial amusement. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2025

~2025-32340-26 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou ~2025-32340-26 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve been in this game for 10 years making rap tunes and look at all the shit I’ve seen through. Also I have been tested positive. Thankyou

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. IsCat (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)