If you say so. Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact,[4] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
Yazata I believe I have found our middle ground. Most times the term 'fact' and 'statement about a fact', are used interchanably. This may be sloppy language, a matter of convenience, I will call it confusing. When most people refer to facts, they are actually referreing to statements about facts. Some may say this is trivial, I would disagree. If you want to know about the look, taste, smell of a mango, when you have never heard of, or saw a mango, there are two things (among many) I might do. I could give you a book about mangos, or I could cut open a mango, and give it to you. If we are concerned about the factual nature of the sight, taste and smell of mangos, the second method is far superior. Statements about facts, are little more than Plato's shadows, of puppets, on the hands of people. I see how the word 'fact' is used, and commonly it is actually referring to a statement about a fact, not the fact itself. These statements about facts, are treated as if they are the facts themselves. These statements about facts are dependent on sociatal norms and beliefs. One of our posters said: "c" is the same, no matter what, where, when. In refering to a certain quality, he is correct. The problems comes when we ask individuals to make factual statements (statemens about facts) about it. One says it is a letter of the Spanish alphabet. Someone else say it represents one passing of the moon. Another says is is a start of the symbol for such and such. The factual nature of that symbol may not have changed, but the statements about the factual nature of it does change, based on social constructs. In the truest form, my position is: 'Statements about facts are social constructs.' Since 'statements about facts' are generally used interchangably with 'facts', I am only doing what others do. I use the word as it is used in actual language. Using the word as others do, I feel justified in saying 'Facts are social constructs.' The statement 'Juipter is the largest planet in the solar system.', is not a fact, it is a statement about a fact, but I doubt you will ever see that written. The statement itself is referered to as a 'fact', but the only 'fact' about it is the materials that make up the digital symbols. Like our poster's "c" that is alway the same, never changes, the pixels are the same, but the meaning may change. The human factual nature changes. If those symbols convey any meaning, it is an example of a social construct. A group has decided a particular statement conveys meaing about the factual nature of this or that. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. Statements about facts, are not the facts themselves.
Observations are limited, experiences are truer, more factual. Let me climb the tree, not just look at it.
It depends on who decides what a 'planet' is. One year Pluto a planet. Next year Pluto probably not a planet. What decides which is right, which is wrong? Pluto? People. Different people, different answer. Different.
I have not suggested in vain you to read the two threads, the links which I gave to you. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2701006#post2701006
My answer was literal... you asked for a clear definition of a particular word and I provided one. What followed was your personal critique of "observation"; however, it didn't appear here nor there (hence a non-sequiteur).
No they're not. Gravity is not a social construct. Light and its behavior is not a social construct. Atomic weight of elements is not a social construct.
Facts, and statements about facts, are not the same thing. One cannot be 'wrong', the other can be. One is what exists, the other is what is thought to exist. In our language, the statements about facts are taken to be facts themselves, and they are not. The understanding of a fact is a social construct. I say the understanding of facts is as least as important as the facts themselves.
Say what you want, (you clearly are) but you can't twist reality. It is, it exists, it is fact. It is your understanding (or twisting) that is at fault.
But this can be contradicted easily. His perception exists, thus his view exists, thus... You have contradicted yourself.
