> Today, we are in a state of disputing facts, because people are disputing theories behind stating such facts. Let me give you an example: a reporter finds two

> Today, we are in a state of disputing facts, because people are disputing theories behind stating such facts. Let me give you an example: a reporter finds two dead bodies. The fact that two dead bodies discovered may not be under dispute. The moment, one says that these two were killed, the other says that these two committed suicide--you see, two theories (homicide vs suicide) are presenting the phenomenon in two different ways. Let me list the facts in your "story": - There are two dead bodies - One person claims a killing - Another person claims a suicide Those are the facts. The claims themselves are not facts, the fact is that there are claims. They're not theories either, they're just claims, which may themselves be supported facts not presented here. What makes something a fact is evidence: I can walk up to the dead bodies and confirm their death, I can talk to person A or B and have them repeat their claim, or maybe there are convincing records of the dead bodies and the people giving the claim. If evidence should show up supporting either person's claim, either the murder or the suicide may become fact, but not sooner. Ultimately, in such a situation, you cannot 100% rule out that it's all the most elaborate hoax ever, or that we're all in a simulation. We're just gonna have to disregard that to get on with our lives.