Truth and the fact

Originally posted by WheretoVirtue?

So, what I'm getting is that a fact is commonly seen as something that can be decidedly proven (through what is trusted and reasonable- scientific understanding).

And that truth is more so seen as a self apparent fact, that doesn't have to be proven in the exact way as fact.

"Hence science prefers to use the term fact in preference to truth and other fields such as theology prefers to use the term truth in preference to fact!"

No! Doesn't what I said make so much sense? Conform! Conform!

The only reason I do not agree is because you are calling facts "commonly seen" and truths "seen as a self apparent."

Not really definite in either explaination.

Well, jeeze nothing short of definite is good for some people huh?

I could of changed those words to more promising ones..I still can..

Definitions do require "definite" wording otherwise it could mean various things

I understand..
But if we wanted to be real definite about what we're talking about..wouldn't we just compare the definitions ?
People don't seem to accept that..I was trying to give more..and now it has to be more definite!?

Some theory mixed with definitions is needed?

TRUTH=CLAIM OF EXISTANCE
FACT=VERIFYABLE CLAIM OF EXISTANCE

Originally posted by WheretoVirtue?
I understand..
But if we wanted to be real definite about what we're talking about..wouldn't we just compare the definitions ?
People don't seem to accept that..I was trying to give more..and now it has to be more definite!?

Some theory mixed with definitions is needed?

You must be taking this personally because you are missing my point entirely.

Originally posted by chithappens

Facts are objective and will be true if someone knows it is that way or not.

Truth is dependent on paradigm or previously known data (or told data).

This is more solid and not wavering on "commonly known" and so on.

Facts are true, but not all truths are facts. Someone can be ignorant to something, and call it true. According to their paradigm, it is true but it is not factual.

Fact just is.

Truth is dependent on things that are not always factual.

All facts are true. Not all truths are facts.

Originally posted by chithappens
You must be taking this personally because you are missing my point entirely.

This is more solid and not wavering on "commonly known" and so on.

Facts are true, but not all truths are facts. Someone can be ignorant to something, and call it true. According to their paradigm, it is true but it is not factual.

Fact just is.

Truth is dependent on things that are not always factual.

All facts are true. Not all truths are facts.

I must? Uh..huh..
Yeah, I'm stuck to what I said.

As said previously, all facts are true.

E.g: It was always a fact that the Earth is round, but people didn't consider it true. It always was, though.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
As said previously, all facts are true.

E.g: It was always a fact that the Earth is round, but people didn't consider it true. It always was, though.

-AC

I find myself agreeing with that statement.

Something can be false even though it's accepted as true, e.g; the Earth was flat. Accepted as true, wasn't.

Once proven as fact, that fact became truth.

-AC

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
what is the difference between truth and fact?

Truths are composed of facts, but not all facts compose truths...

Then again you can argue the legitimacy of half truths and whole truths and whether or not a fact supporting a half truth is the same as the whole truth since it is a truth none the less. As awkward as the reasoning sounds.

Synonyms?

Why even post anything if you are not going to read the previous posts before your own?

Originally posted by chithappens
Why even post anything if you are not going to read the previous posts before your own?

I'm sorry, who are you addressing?

Chances are someone has already said what you said. Read the pages.
People come and post in a topic their opinion and other new people agree with them, meanwhile someone had already said the same thing.

Originally posted by WheretoVirtue?
Chances are someone has already said what you said. Read the pages.
People come and post in a topic their opinion and other new people agree with them, meanwhile someone had already said the same thing.

So what's your point? If my opinion has already been stated, instead of so rudely rebuking me for something already said, why don't you simply redirect me to the previous comment, or repeat the question/rebuttal that you gave my predecessor?

Well don't you think if I quoted the previous comment, and said "opinion stated already" you might resent that a little. Unless of course I added a pleasant smiley face..but I just don't think I would.

You can spend the same amount of time either reading previous posts or witting a completely "original" one. And yet if you write one without reading, then I have to quote. Why don't you read as many posts as you think you should, learn a few things from them and write a newly informed one. That'll keep this topic alive.