2

As I understand the event of objects falling down is a fact (due to gravitation, for example). Or water taking the shape of its container.

But can someone say that it is a fact that we are "homosapiens"? I mean can a statement that is true due to fitting some definition be considered a fact?

Quentin Ruyant
  • 5,858
  • 16
  • 29
Turkhan Badalov
  • 304
  • 3
  • 10
  • Facts are "part of the inventory of what there is"; they are out there in the world. Definitions are statements: we define concepts. To say that "it is a fact that we are homo sapiens" is a way to express the "correspondence" between the content of a statement and the way the world is. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 03 '17 at 09:19
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, thank you very much for the answer. But what about semantics, proposition of this statement? Is it fact I am a homosapiens because there is a correspondence between world and concept? I want you to pay attention, that homosapiens is much more strict definition than let's say abstract notions like love. And we are homosapiens as a result of evolution. So there were times when we were not homosapiens but others (homoerectus, etc. and at that times there even were no definition to fit). Doesn't this mean it can change in the future? So "we are all homosapiens" will be false. – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 10:09
  • "we are all homo sapiens" may change in the future? Maybe; according to future scientific discoveries or "improevd" version of evolutionary theory. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 03 '17 at 10:12
  • I'm not sure that "we are all homo sapiens" is a definition; it is a stateemnt expressing a fact according to our current empirical evidence and current scientific theories. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Dec 03 '17 at 10:14
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, btw I didn't say "we are all homosapiens" is a definition. I am still not content with this. At least expressing the fact through correspondence seems to me like a weak fact. Because the fact that objects fall is more geniuine, that is nobody can even make an objection. But the fact of me being homosapiens can be argued at one point of time. For example, if I create time machine and send myself to the future, where people evolved but really look almost the same as me (like homosapiens and preciding homo neanderthalensis), they will argue saying I am not homo sapiens – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 10:26
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, given they still don't know about time machine. – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 10:28
  • 1
    @TurkhanBadalov it's not very clear what you mean by fitting a definition. Apparently (from your comments) you do not mean "being true by definition". So do you mean something like "belonging to a kind" or "falling under a concept"? – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 10:34
  • @QuentinRuyant homo sapiens has its own definition. So for now we as humans fit to this definition. Maybe I am not qualified enough to fluently operate with these terms yet, but I think you got what I wanted to say. 1. Homo sapiens - stage of human evolution that has a definition. 2. We fit to this definition. 3. We are of this stage. But I will be thankful if you correct misuing of terms. – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 10:40
  • @TurkhanBadalov so in this case, what you mean by "fitting this definition" is just "being at this stage of evolution"? – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 10:56
  • @QuentinRuyant, not completely. "Being at this stage of evolution" is a conclusion I make due to "fitting a definition". Like I say "someone is an atheist" because of a definition of atheist his actions fit to. – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 11:04
  • @TurkhanBadalov ok got it. But I'm still unclear about what "fitting a definition" would mean. According to you, what does it take to fit a definition? or alternatively, how do we know that something fits a definition? Do you mean it as a mere stipulation, a kind of conventional choice, or do you mean something like belonging to a natural class of things? Maybe "fitting a definition"is not the appropriate locution because a strict definition is an equivalence relation between a word and a description (e.g. bachelors are unmarried men), but here, no equivalence relation is involved. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 12:40
  • @QuentinRuyant, I think for an object to fit its definition means to have such properties that satisfy every requirement put on the object by its definition. To know whether it fits it, we can go through all requirements (properties) in definition and check if a considered object satisfies them (owns properties). And the object fits its definition IFF all requirements are satisfied. But I have doubts about definitions in general. Because not all definitions are so strict. So maybe the problem in definitions? "I am homo sapiens" is a fact, given homosapiens has a strict definition? – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 13:26
  • @TurkhanBadalov yes, not all definitions are so strict. There has been a question on explicit versus implicit definitions recently maybe you can check it https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/47434/undefined-terms/47435#47435 – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 13:35
  • @TurkhanBadalov I am puzzled because you said "Being at this stage of evolution" is a conclusion I make due to "fitting a definition". But now you say that fitting a definition is just a matter of meeting some criteria, so"being at this stage of evolution" is not the conclusion, it's what fitting the definition amounts to in this case. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 13:38
  • @QuentinRuyant, yes at that stage of evolution named Homo sapiens (note that all members of this stage are also called Homo sapiens). What is wrong with this? Being at that stage <=> to be a homo sapiens. No? – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 13:47
  • 1
    @TurkhanBadalov but as far as I can see now, the answer to your question is: yes it's a fact, because it's a fact that something x meets the criteria for being X, and if this is exactly what X means (to fit these criteria) then it's a fact that x is X. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 13:47
  • 1
    @TurkhanBadalov nothing wrong, it just seems to contradict your answer at 11:04 or maybe I have misunderstood it. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 13:48
  • @QuentinRuyant, are there cases when x fits the criteria for being X, but for some reasons it couldn't be named to be X? – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 13:49
  • @TurkhanBafalov if the criteria are just what it means to be X, no, that cannot make sense. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 13:59

2 Answers2

2

If you take "fitting a definition" to mean meeting the criteria associated with this definition, then it's a fact that something fits a definition.

So for example, as you say, it can be a fact that an object O falls down. Now imagine that you define a new term "fallingobject" with the criteria that something is a fallingobject if it falls down. Then it's a fact that O is a fallingobject, i.e. that it fits this definition, because what you mean by "O is a fallingobject" is just that O falls down, and by stipulation, this is a fact.

Quentin Ruyant
  • 5,858
  • 16
  • 29
  • One more question, is there any other way to "fit definition"? Because we always refer to definitions. So we think and reason upon definitions (that can be different by the way). You say "If you take "fitting a definition" to mean meeting the criteria associated with this definition, ...". Because people usually give definitions and just reference to them without noting the right way to fit them. – Turkhan Badalov Dec 03 '17 at 14:03
  • I don't see the locution "fit a definition"often used in the literature. However there are different sorts of definitions, and there are ways of understanding meaning of words that do not rely on definitions. – Quentin Ruyant Dec 03 '17 at 14:29
0

Here is a a more linguistic approach as opposed to the common scientific approach. By definition the concept "Fact" expresses that something in the real world that corresponds to the concept that must hold the truth value TRUE. The terms "analytic" and "Synthetic" will come in hand as well. We say a statement is analytically true if the statement is impossible to be false. For example all bachelors are unmarried men. By the definition of the words alone the statement cannot be false. This type of statement is called logically necessary. On the other hand an analytical false statement exists. These statements make it impossible for the claim to be true and must always have the truth value of false. All triangles have six sides. This statement is called self-contradictory. The word triangle alone expresses the shape must have three sides exactly. To say otherwise is a misuse of the term triangle. The same can be said about the statement I am a married bachelor. The term married expresses one cannot be a bachelor because one has a spouse. The term bachelor expresses one does not and cannot have a spouse and remain a bachelor simultaneously.

So in this light we can see that some facts are logically necessary in terms of our language. All triangles have three sides is a fact. A triangle must have exactly three sides. Any other variation in definition means the language used is ambiguous or the statement must be false. This is the linguistic side.

Then you have the sense verification side. This is what is known as science. Again I could define things a certain way that is not necessarily true to be the case and use language to reduce people creating the rejection of the truth value of a statement. The government creates laws in this way and then refer to the law. This is usually called a precedence. There is authority that goes along with this so there is really no questioning the origin of the precedent. Law is something that must be accepted as is being based on authority. In this sense there are legal facts.

Let's focus on sense verifiable facts. All snakes are reptiles is a factual claim. That is, there are no instances of something being a snake and not being a reptile. This as is, would be impossible to be false. If I err on naming something a snake like I will find a mouse and call that a snake I will have a case of an x that is not a reptile. But the issue is I made a mistake! I mislabeled something which led to the wrong conclusion. A fact is a term like bachelor or triangle that should indicate something to the person you are communicating to which is the term FACT implies what follows must have a truth value of TRUE forever. If I say all apples are red fruits is a fact and someone finds a green apple my original claim is immediately proven "not a fact". Facts have no exceptions with clear unambiguous language. Only when one starts playing word games can someone allegedly bypass the definition of what a fact is. If you find loop holes in a definition then you have evidence the definition is not specific enough as it could be. A lot of rhetorical tricks involve sandbagging techniques. This is where you down play what you already know to be true. Card players popularized this when playing card games like Spades where you tell your card partner you can make 3 definite books with the cards dealt to you but you really can make 5 books. This is deception and does not belong in logic. Barrack Obama was once the president of the United States. If I said Barrack Obama IS the president of the United States this is either false or poorly worded because if I said the words in 2010 the claim would be true and a false value if I mean current day. Facts cannot be both true and not true. Once specific data like dates were inserted then the truth is forever. Facts can only be true. People are often just mistaken on what they label as fact. I can say any claim x is a fact that does not magically make my claim become true. A mouse does not magically turn into something else because I use the wrong name or classification.

Logikal
  • 414
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9