7 ms·

Do facts change? fact /fakt/ noun: fact; plural noun: facts a thing that is known or proved to be true.

dmos62 5y ago
Does what is known or what is proved change?
saalweachter 5y ago
"Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact, (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English."
randomswede 5y ago
Sometimes, yes. 40 years ago, the following was a fact: "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia". It is clearly not true anymore. So, existence proof that facts can change.
- phasnox 5y ago
  No. Because facts are time constrained. You are talking about two different facts.
  - chillingeffect 5y ago
    a fact is a metastatement and thus subject to unprovability. not guaranteed unproveable but potentially unproveable whether it's proveable.
  - randomswede 5y ago
    If facts are time-constrained, then a statement that was at one point factual may stop being factual. I would still consider that to be an existence proof that "facts change". You may want to put some temporal logic spin on it, if that makes you happier (technically, it makes me happier, but I am content with saying "facts can change"), but the question I was trying to answer was "do facts change". I think I demonstrated that what once was factual may stop being factual.
    - ric2b 5y ago
      Not really. "As of 1981, there is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia" is a fact that never stops being factual. At least this is the view that many functional programmers like to use and I find it useful. In that model, a statement that can vary in time isn't a fact.
      - randomswede 5y ago
        That is a statement that requires you to reason within a temporal logic. And it is a statement that is not equivalent to "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia".
  - bena 5y ago
    Then modify his statement accordingly. Your issue with Keynes's quote is that he used the word fact in a way that indicates that it can be changed. But according to you, it can. But also according to you, they can also be "time-constrained". But the general thrust of his point remains. When the time constraints of a fact elapse and allow a new fact to replace the old fact, he changes his position. New information allows for new opinions. Arguing about the definitions of words to score points is meaningless pedantry. You don't want to argue the actual point, that you should be able to change your mind when situations change or you learn new information. Because doing so would make you look like you're just stubborn and easily led. But for some reason, you can't agree with the quote because then you'd be granting something to the person you're currently debating with. Or to the side of the debate you agree with, seeing as we're dealing with multiple responders. But all of this is to discuss the credibility of the Dogecoin founder. And that's a fair discussion to have, because his credibility and motives are very much relevant to why he should have certain opinions. But now it seems the entire discussion is being done a very meta level. Where we're no longer talking about his qualifications, his stake in the success or failure of crypto, his reasons for making statements, etc. No, now we're discussing the dictionary definition of "fact".
    - phasnox 5y ago
      I was not responding to the Keynes quote, I was responding to this: > 40 years ago, the following was a fact: "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia". It is clearly not true anymore. So, existence proof that facts can change.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
Igelau 5y ago
Yeah. "True" is murkier than you think.

Does what is known or what is proved change?

"Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a true fact, (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English."

randomswede 5y ago

Sometimes, yes. 40 years ago, the following was a fact: "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia". It is clearly not true anymore. So, existence proof that facts can change.

phasnox 5y ago
No. Because facts are time constrained. You are talking about two different facts.
- chillingeffect 5y ago
  a fact is a metastatement and thus subject to unprovability. not guaranteed unproveable but potentially unproveable whether it's proveable.
- randomswede 5y ago
  If facts are time-constrained, then a statement that was at one point factual may stop being factual. I would still consider that to be an existence proof that "facts change". You may want to put some temporal logic spin on it, if that makes you happier (technically, it makes me happier, but I am content with saying "facts can change"), but the question I was trying to answer was "do facts change". I think I demonstrated that what once was factual may stop being factual.
  - ric2b 5y ago
    Not really. "As of 1981, there is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia" is a fact that never stops being factual. At least this is the view that many functional programmers like to use and I find it useful. In that model, a statement that can vary in time isn't a fact.
    - randomswede 5y ago
      That is a statement that requires you to reason within a temporal logic. And it is a statement that is not equivalent to "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia".
- bena 5y ago
  Then modify his statement accordingly. Your issue with Keynes's quote is that he used the word fact in a way that indicates that it can be changed. But according to you, it can. But also according to you, they can also be "time-constrained". But the general thrust of his point remains. When the time constraints of a fact elapse and allow a new fact to replace the old fact, he changes his position. New information allows for new opinions. Arguing about the definitions of words to score points is meaningless pedantry. You don't want to argue the actual point, that you should be able to change your mind when situations change or you learn new information. Because doing so would make you look like you're just stubborn and easily led. But for some reason, you can't agree with the quote because then you'd be granting something to the person you're currently debating with. Or to the side of the debate you agree with, seeing as we're dealing with multiple responders. But all of this is to discuss the credibility of the Dogecoin founder. And that's a fair discussion to have, because his credibility and motives are very much relevant to why he should have certain opinions. But now it seems the entire discussion is being done a very meta level. Where we're no longer talking about his qualifications, his stake in the success or failure of crypto, his reasons for making statements, etc. No, now we're discussing the dictionary definition of "fact".
  - phasnox 5y ago
    I was not responding to the Keynes quote, I was responding to this: > 40 years ago, the following was a fact: "There is a country in Europe named Yugoslavia". It is clearly not true anymore. So, existence proof that facts can change.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Igelau 5y ago

Yeah. "True" is murkier than you think.