What is the difference between a fact and a finding?

wegs

wegs

Matter and Pixie Dust
Valued Senior Member
I was reading a science article earlier, whereby the author is claiming that he is providing the reader, ''facts.'' The comments that followed under the article, seemed to express much different opinions. Many stated ''Bob, I wouldn't consider these facts, they seem more like findings.'' And then he (the author) retracted, replying to the comments that he shouldn't have characterized his ''findings'' as ''facts.'' The article was mainly about human behavior, and how this particular human behavior that he was describing was considered to be evolutionary, and not behavior that had been culturally learned. (studies had proven) Seemed factual to me? :?

When it comes to science - when can we safely assume that something be considered a fact, as opposed to a finding?
 
Last edited:
Daecon said:
If I find that all Swans are white, that doesn't necessarily make it a fact...
Click to expand...
That makes sense, but the author of the article had used a few (what seemed to be) legitimate studies to back up his assertions. So basically, his finding the studies to be proof of what he was trying to prove, doesn't mean it is proof/factual?
 
If you spot a white Swan that is an observation that can be utilized to form the hypothesis that 'All swans are white'. The hypothesis is then tested by going into the field to make more observations. If a non-white Swan is discovered, then the hypothesis is rejected. If all Swans discovered during observations are white, then the hypothesis is strengthened. A large number of observations of white Swans from many studies by many scientists over many years would build a convincing scientific literature. Just one or two observations by one scientist is not enough to warrant the title of 'fact' for the assertion 'All Swans are white'. DE
 
wegs said:
What is the difference between a fact and a finding?
Click to expand...

A 'fact' is an existing state of affairs. Very roughly it is what we think of as 'reality'. Truth and falsity don't apply to facts, they simply are (if they aren't, they aren't facts).

A 'finding' is a stated result of a research inquiry. It can be either true or false. I think that 'conclusion' is usually used for the final result of a research inquiry, while 'finding' is more like 'lemma' in a proof, a preliminary and partial result.

I was reading a science article earlier, whereby the author is claiming that he is providing the reader, ''facts.''
Click to expand...

Certainly the intention of a scientific inquiry is to produce results that are true, that correspond to and correctly represent the facts of whatever it is that is under investigation. But since science is a human activity and is a matter of belief, it is always going to be an approximation to whatever the facts are. Science (or the product of science at least) is a system of human beliefs that attempts to model the facts of reality.

The comments that followed under the article, seemed to express much different opinions. Many stated ''Bob, I wouldn't consider these facts, they seem more like findings.'' And then he (the author) retracted, replying to the comments that he shouldn't have characterized his ''findings'' as ''facts.''
Click to expand...

The objection in the comment was a good one and the author responded appropriately.

When it comes to science - when can we safely assume that something be considered a fact, as opposed to a finding?
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to give propositions, and the beliefs that they express, informal plausibility weights. They range from near zero (almost no chance of being true) to near one (almost certain to be true). I'm inclined to treat zero and one, infallible certainty of falsity or truth, as cognitive ideals that are probably never reached in real life. In other words, a scientist or a science writer calling a scientific conclusion a 'fact' is just posturing boastfully in my opinion. (Or else it's an unfortunate choice of words, as in this case you describe.)

In science things like experimental verification and mathematical derivation from highly weighted theory can increase the weight that I think (and the scientific community as a whole typically thinks) a scientific proposition has. Personally, I'm especially persuaded by consilience. That's when very different lines of inquiry, based on different theoretical assumptions and employing different experimental/observational methods, arrive at the same results regarding the same thing. For example, paleontological examination of fossils and analysis of molecular genetic DNA sequencing data might point to the same phylogenetic history for a particular kind of organism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Unfortunately, this tendency of mine to assign weights to propositions (a tendency that I think is shared by most people, including scientists) is informal, based on individuals' intuitive assessments of the likelihoods of things. That introduces a huge element of subjectivity into science. One of the more active research areas of contemporary epistemology is the attempt to formalize this kind of epistemological weighting process.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/
 
Last edited:
A finding can be made of many facts.
Measure 100 tapeworms. T1= 22.9 cm is a fact. T2= 36.6 cm is a fact.... The average length of this 100 tapeworms is 28.7cm may be a fact. The longest tapeworm in this sample, T41 is 41.1cm is a fact.
That tapeworms range from 19 to 41 cm. in length is a finding based on a sample of 100. You would need many, much larger samples, and from different sources, to make a general statement about the size of all tapeworms everywhere, but this finding is a start.
 
Yazata said:
A 'finding' is a stated result of a research inquiry. It can be either true or false. I think that 'conclusion' is usually used for the final result of a research inquiry, while 'finding' is more like 'lemma' in a proof, a preliminary and partial result.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the FAA might release a finding that a pilot was at fault for an accident, but that does not make it fact.
Climatologists might release a finding that human activity is the major cause for global warming, but that does not make it fact.
 
davidelkins said:
If you spot a white Swan that is an observation that can be utilized to form the hypothesis that 'All swans are white'. The hypothesis is then tested by going into the field to make more observations. If a non-white Swan is discovered, then the hypothesis is rejected. If all Swans discovered during observations are white, then the hypothesis is strengthened. A large number of observations of white Swans from many studies by many scientists over many years would build a convincing scientific literature. Just one or two observations by one scientist is not enough to warrant the title of 'fact' for the assertion 'All Swans are white'. DE
Click to expand...

This is very helpful - the author of the article led his readers to believing that his research alone was enough to state that his ''findings'' were ''facts.'' The good news is that he retracted his statement, in a humble way, when it was pointed out to him by other readers in the comment section.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Indeed, the FAA might release a finding that a pilot was at fault for an accident, but that does not make it fact.
Click to expand...
Now, this example seems confusing. If the FAA release a finding that a pilot was at fault, then he/she would be at fault. What would turn that finding into a fact, then? It seems factual.

Climatologists might release a finding that human activity is the major cause for global warming, but that does not make it fact.
Click to expand...

This example makes sense. The first one though, can you explain?
 
Jeeves said:
A finding can be made of many facts.
Measure 100 tapeworms. T1= 22.9 cm is a fact. T2= 36.6 cm is a fact.... The average length of this 100 tapeworms is 28.7cm may be a fact. The longest tapeworm in this sample, T41 is 41.1cm is a fact.
That tapeworms range from 19 to 41 cm. in length is a finding based on a sample of 100.
Click to expand...
But, your finding was based on actual experimentation. Why wouldn't the range be considered factual and not merely a finding? Not trying to be obtuse, this is something I'd like to better understand.

You would need many, much larger samples, and from different sources, to make a general statement about the size of all tapeworms everywhere, but this finding is a start.
Click to expand...

So law of large numbers can move a finding into a fact.

Can something be a finding and a fact?
 
wegs said:
Now, this example seems confusing. If the FAA release a finding that a pilot was at fault, then he/she would be at fault. What would turn that finding into a fact, then? It seems factual.
Click to expand...
Heh. This was just on a courtroom TV show called Bull. The FAA-equivalent Report found the pilot at fault due to negligence.
But it was not a fact; it was a judgment. And the court was not required to take it as gospel.

And it was wrong.
 
wegs said:
But, your finding was based on actual experimentation.
Click to expand...
They usually are. In fact, anything that's presented as a finding that's not based on measurements, or a survey, or observations of some kind isn't a finding at all, but an opinion.
Why wouldn't the range be considered factual and not merely a finding?
Click to expand...
The range - within that sample - is factual. But it's not enough to make a factual statement about all tapeworms everywhere. (The longest one I've personally seen was well over a meter.)
So, there might be a whole lot of facts about a whole lot of subjects, but they don't necessarily add up to a factual conclusion about the entire of class of entities under study.
The writer of your article can present a series of facts that were recorded during his study and let you draw a conclusion. What he can't do is present his own conclusion as a fact.
Not trying to be obtuse, this is something I'd like to better understand.
Click to expand...
Scientific research is fussy and tedious. It takes a pile of little facts - measurements, usually - to make a finding and several findings to make a theory, which then has to be tested, usually through one or more experiments devised especially, and preferably by different teams, attempting to show up exceptions and contradictions, before it's an accepted theory. And even then, it has years of challenges to survive before it's generally stated as a fact.
Think climate change. How many ice-cores, how many wind-speed measurements, how many rainfall comparisons; how many findings in how many lonely fields stations; how many computer models and simulations, symposia and conferences, add up to the one really big, freaking FACT?
Can something be a finding and a fact?
Click to expand...
It depends on the question. A big question needs many findings to verify it; a little one may get by on a single study....
No, on second thoughts, I don't think it can, because every study has a potential bias or blind-spot or inadequate sample source. Every finding requires independent corroboration.
 
Last edited:
Jeeves said:
The range - within that sample - is factual. But it's not enough to make a factual statement about all tapeworms everywhere. (The longest one I've personally seen was well over a meter.)
So, there might be a whole lot of facts about a whole lot of subjects, but they don't necessarily add up to a factual conclusion about the entire of class of entities under study.
The writer of your article can present a series of facts that were recorded during his study and let you draw a conclusion. What he can't do is present his own conclusion as a fact.
Click to expand...

Bolded by me. That's what he did, actually. Which is why that reader commented that it was really ''just a'' finding. Okay, this has been most helpful, thanks!
 
wegs said:
Can something be a finding and a fact?
Click to expand...

Couple of posters have already stated that fact is non falsifiable, the truth.

Findings can be falsified.

A finding can be a fact but not all findings are facts.

For example a decomposed body was found on beach side and preliminarily investigation shows that it is of xyz.

Now there are two findings/observations in this. The first one is a fact, but the later one need not be a fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top