Most people would say there are no absolute truths, which in itself becomes an absolute truth. But what about facts? Everyday we are used to acknowledging simple facts which we seem to take to be true in an absolute sense. I was late for work this morning. My cat is named Max. Today is Wednesday. And so on. ARE facts examples of absolute truths? Or is there some sense in which facts are only true relatively?
This seems to require a statement of what is meant by "absolute truth". I'm not at all sure that I agree most people would say there are none. But then my notion of absolute truth may not be what you have in mind. I see (from Wiki) there are formulations along the lines of "that which is true under all imaginable conditions". That would seem to be true of your cat's name. 2+2 =4, or indeed any rigorously qualified "true" statement in mathematics would seem to be examples as well. But these all relate to abstract logic rather than the material world. (The name you give your cat is merely a logical label defined by you and has no material significance.) A fact however may well not be an absolute truth in the above sense. "Today is Wednesday" will become false in a few hours time, so this is clearly not true under all imaginable conditions. Regarding the material world, I'd say competently made scientific observations are facts (in contrast to scientific theories, which are not strictly facts, but provisional models of reality). But it is always acknowledged that these observations may only be "true" under the conditions applying to the observation, which is why the conditions are normally reported in some detail. So maybe I could agree with you that there are no absolute truths - in the sense above at least - that we can state about the material world. This is emphatically NOT to say that there is no final reality in nature, merely that we have an incomplete perception of it.
Basically by "absolute truth" I mean a proposition that is true regardless of the situation or the speaker. But I see that my assumption of its possible equatability with fact may be flawed. Fact is basically a statement about a specific situation or that situation itself. So you really couldn't say a truth that is independent of situation is the same as a statement ABOUT a situation. They seem to be two entirely separate things.
Are there absolute truths? Absolutely. As you yourself previously alluded to, there can't not be. Even if nothing exists beyond the reality of your own thoughts, the reality of your own thoughts is self evident. As such, the statement "I have thoughts", or at least "here be thoughts", is absolutely true. One can get lost in a ridiculously pedantic analysis of such a scenario, carrying on about what "thoughts" really are and whatnot, but it's essentially true no matter how you define things. Whatever is going on, is going on. It can't not be, unless it isn't, and then the fact that it isn't would be absolutely true instead. In other words, you have to be one degree crazier than a metaphysical solipsist to believe that there are no such things as those that actually are.
So your absolute truth is, "Whatever is going on, is going on"? That seems more a tautology than a truth. What more information do I have after reading it than I had before I read it?
For practical purposes... formal systems in diverse fields of work can feature "absolutes": Fixed, invariable, or immutable quantitative values, measurements, qualities, concepts, standards, etc. Back in the sensible world from which such were abstracted, however, there are those "nasty" relationships between entities, events, and recorded / described facts ("Lincoln was assassinated by Booth"). Historically, anglophone and continental empiricists of assorted stripes and offshoots often chose to discard or delegate to insignificance the possibility of "things in themselves" (counterparts of phenomena that would be utterly independent of connection to "other" such things -- that is, having an intrinsic essence / being as opposed to the extrinsic-derived one that rules in the representations of consciousness [latter here including both reason and perception]). James J. Kovalcin: "The minute ANYONE uses the words ABSOLUTE TRUTH you have lost the respect and attention of virtually all physicists. Scientists and physicists in particular do NOT respond to this kind of language. Physics is just not made up of absolutes in any sense of the word." Ernst Mach: "It then becomes obvious that the reference to unknown fundamental variables which are not given (things-in-themselves) is purely fictitious and superfluous. [...] In which case we have knowledge only of sensations, and the assumption of the nuclei referred to, or of a reciprocal action between them, from which sensations proceed, turns out to be quite idle and superfluous. Such a view can only suit with a half-hearted realism or a half-hearted philosophical criticism. [...] I have always felt it as a stroke of special good fortune, that early in life, at about the age of fifteen, I lighted, in the library of my father, on a copy of Kant's Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics. The book made at the time a powerful and ineffaceable impression upon me, the like of which I never afterwards experienced in any of my philosophical reading. Some two or three years later the superfluity of the role played by 'the thing in itself' abruptly dawned upon me."
Hey, don't blame me. You're the one asking if facts are true. So, as far as I can tell, my comments follow from yours. But if you'd like to redirect, go ahead.
Maybe you can regard facts in three categories: 1. Absolute or relative truths for philosophical purposes: They are subjected to rigorous equations of formal logic (or theology). 2. Absolute or theoretical truths for scientific purposes: These have to be predictable, consistently reproducible, and quantifiable. 3. Functional or provisional truths for practical application: This can be tested by whether your boss is angry and whether Max comes when called... um.... just run the can opener.
Aristotle said, "If a man says of what is, that it is, or of what is not, that it is not, then he speaks the truth. And if a man says of what is, that it is not, or of what is not, that it is, then he does not speak the truth." Simple. Truth is a quality of words. If what is said corresponds to reality, then what is said is true. If not, then not. Facts are statements truth statements about reality. In language, it's not too far off the mark to say that a statement consists more of what isn't said than what is said, normally. That is, in everyday speech, much is implied, rather than outrightly stated. For example, the statement, "It's cold outside!" actually consists of much more than three words and a conjunction. This statement is really saying something more like, "On this day, Thursday, March 21, 2013, at 8:08am, the temperature outside is of a low enough degree to make you feel uncomfortable, and may perhaps even be dangerous to your health if exposed to it for too long, therefore you might want to dress warmly, with layers, in order to keep your internal body temperature contained, and constant, and keep the cold from sapping the heat from you." When we understand that our language acts this way, that some words are placeholders for entire concepts, and that there is much that is meant, that isn't said, we can say that every statement we make is unique. For example, I may say two days in a row, "It's cold outside!" but each statement means something slightly different (namely, each statement is about a separate day, or separate timeframe). Frames of reference and context also play a big part in language. The statement, "kill the teachers!" could mean something different depending on the context. For example, a person might mean, "every teacher should be killed, because teachers are deceivers" speaking generically, and another person might mean, "kill these particular teachers, Harry and John, because they kidnapped and abused dozens of kids," speaking more specifically. Context plays a big part in what isn't said in language. So, what does "absolute truth" mean? If truth is a quality of words, and if words (or statements) depend a lot of what is not said, thus making each statement unique and regarding to a specific reality, then each and every statement must have it's own independent truth value (ie, true or false). So each statement is either absolutely true, or absolutely false. But are there statements that apply "accross the board," so to speak? I think this is what is meant by absolute truth. Statements that are true in every circumstance. I think we calls these laws, or principles. The most commonly referenced of these are mathematic rules. Rules such as those applying to addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. Regarding other principles and laws, we are not as certain. We may hold certain principles or laws, but we may be wrong about them. This doesn't mean absolutes don't exist. We know they do. It just means we can be uncertain about which of those we hold actually are true. But what about facts? It seems to me that facts can be about both circumstantial information as well as universal principles. For example, it is a fact that I'm sitting adjacent to a desk right now (circumstantial information), and this is true statement. It is also a fact that multiple sets of positive quantities added together equal a positive quantity of greater value (universal principle), and this is an absolute truth statement. "Fact" seems to be the primary word , while "universal principle" and "circumstantial information" are subsets of it. And so because universal principles are absolute truth statements, so may some facts also be absolute truths. And because circumstantial information is a true statement within its set of circumstances, so must facts also be true, within their specific sets of circumstances. I think normally, when we say "fact," we're referring to something that we know to be true. Therefore, in the above assessment, I referred only to true circumstantial information, rather than circumstantial statements we make that are actually false. Likewise with universal principles that we hold that are actually false. However, let it be said that we may be mistaken about facts. Just because we hold something as fact, doesn't mean it is actually true, it just means we feel pretty certain it's true.
That "Whatever is going on, is going on" is an absolute truth does not follow from my question. I'm simply asking if facts are absolute truths. Is this really so hard to grasp?
The Earth orbits the sun. Assuming that this actually happens, it's a fact. So when I say it, it's a true statement. A truth. So, my answer is yes, and it was the first time too. I thought I had made it pretty clear, but maybe not. Perhaps it might be useful to look at this from the other side. Can a fact, assuming it is indeed a fact and not merely a supposition, or an educated guess, or a matter of perspective (or whatever), not be true? I think it would be wholly absurd to say so.
I don't know what the phrase "absolute truth" means. If it means 'necessary truth', then I'd say that these probably don't exist anywhere outside mathematics and formal logic (and maybe not even there). In real life, all of our assertions seem to have likelihoods, ranging from near-false to near-true, where 'true' and 'false' themselves seem to be something like cognitive ideals. Many of our assertions fall in the middle somewhere, with significant likelihoods that they might be either true or false. Put more simply, just about anything that we say might later turn out to be wrong. In logic, the things that are true or false are typically taken to be propositions. Facts are what propositions refer to, what they are about. So a fact is the state of affairs whose obtaining makes a proposition true. In other words, 'true' and 'false' aren't really words that apply to facts. They apply to the statements that we make about facts. The facts themselves simply are. (Or aren't, if what's said is false.)
Facts are statements. Apples are red, most people would agree but people who study the brain think otherwise. Statements in that sense can be contradicted, but their generally accepted by most people.
Absolute truth cannot be as you do not know what we will know tomorrow, that disproves so much of the science we believe today. What techs might some alien race have that might totally disprove everything we think we know. Our minds are all limited to what ever and how ever our minds work. If we where created like alot of us think, whom ever created us would most definitely know the limits of human imagination and there abilities to reason. So there is no absolute truths ever, just facts. Facts are something we agree exist within our reality and the restraints of that reality and how we view it. Like how we view the world is through a lense, what if gravity on earth was different, how would we view the world and the information entering our minds. Like i said before, whom ever controls gravity first on earth will dictate to the world what is reality. Even the absolute truth(we have no idea again) that the world teaches us about death. We have no idea what happens after death but we mostly accept it as absolute truth that death is the end, but we do not know. Whether our leaders know different we have no idea as we are taught that death is final, apart from our religious beliefs. We have no real idea if any of our beliefs are absolute truths, as always there may be something more advanced that knows different. If we where created, then whom ever did this knows we will never really answer any questions at all. Its why i am an absurdist. All people looking for knowledge should be, but thats your choice.
Are facts the absolute truth? Can words be wrong? Can thoughts be wrong? And can ones belief be wrong? Can one believe a lie? Fact the sun is yellow? To a sighted person it is, too a blind person it isn't and to a color blind person it isn't. The word absolute is relevant to the person who believes it is, as is facts? pljames
Well here's two facts that are absolute truths Without either air and/or water a living thing will die No matter what you name or call either
