View source for Fact

{{Short description|Datum or structured component of reality}}
{{Other uses}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}

A '''fact''' is a [[Truth|true]] [[datum]] about one or more aspects of a circumstance.<ref>{{Cite dictionary|title=fact |url=https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact |access-date=2023-05-17 |dictionary=Dictionary.com |language=en}}</ref> Standard [[reference works]] are often used to [[check facts]]. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by [[experiments]] or other means. Generally speaking, facts are independent of [[belief]], [[knowledge]] and [[opinion]]. 
Facts are different from [[inference]]s, [[theories]], [[values]], and [[Object (philosophy)|objects]].<ref>{{Citation |last1=Mulligan |first1=Kevin |title=Facts |date=2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/facts/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Winter 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |quote=Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values (cf. Rundle 1993) and are to be distinguished from things, in particular from complex objects, complexes and wholes, and from relations. |access-date=2022-11-18 |last2=Correia |first2=Fabrice}}</ref>

For example, "This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and "the Sun is a star" describes an astronomical fact. Further, "[[Abraham Lincoln]] was the 16th president of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" are both historical facts.

==Etymology and usage==

The word ''fact'' derives from the Latin ''factum''. It was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed"{{spaced en dash}}a meaning now obsolete outside the law.<ref name="Exp. Dan">"Fact" (1a). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989 Joye ''Exp. Dan.'' xi. Z vij b, ''Let emprours and kinges know this godly kynges fact. 1545''(but note the conventional uses: ''after the fact'' and ''before the fact'')</ref> The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the mid-16th century.<ref name="Exp. Dan"/>

Barbara J. Shapiro wrote in her book ''A Culture of Fact'' how the concept of a fact evolved, starting within the English legal tradition of the 16th century.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Shapiro |first=Barbara J. |title=A culture of fact : England, 1550-1720 |date=2000 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=0-8014-3686-9 |location=Ithaca |language=en |oclc=41606276}}</ref>

In 1870, [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] described in his book ''The Fixation of Belief'' four methods which people use to decide what they should believe: tenacity, method of authority, a priori and scientific method.<ref>Charles Sanders Peirce. ''The Fixation of Belief'' paperback – July 26, 2017 {{ISBN|1973922991}}, 38 pp</ref>

The term ''fact'' also indicates a ''matter under discussion'' deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "...&nbsp;the ''fact'' of the matter is ...").<ref>"Fact" (6c). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref><ref>(See also "Matter" (2,6). ''Compact_Oxford English Dictionary'')</ref>

Alternatively, ''fact'' may also indicate an [[allegation]] or [[stipulation]] of something that may or may not be a ''true fact'',<ref>"Fact" (5). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref> (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English according to the ''American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.<ref>''American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language''_4th_Ed.</ref>'' The ''Oxford English Dictionary'' dates this use to 1729.<ref>"Fact" (5). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref>

''Fact'' may also indicate findings derived through a ''process of evaluation'', including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.<ref>"Fact" (6a). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref> This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a [[Trier of fact|fact-finding]] commission").<ref>"Fact" (8). Oxford English Dictionary_2d_Ed_1989</ref>

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. [[Roger Bacon]] wrote "If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."<ref>Roger Bacon, translated by Robert Burke ''Opus Majus'', Book I, Chapter 2.</ref>

==In philosophy==

In [[philosophy]], the concept ''fact'' is considered in the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge, called [[epistemology]] and [[ontology]], which studies concepts such as [[existence]], [[being]], [[Becoming (philosophy)|becoming]], and [[reality]]. Questions of [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objectivity]] and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A fact can be defined as something that is the case, in other words, a [[State of affairs (philosophy)|state of affairs]].<ref>"A fact, it might be said, is a state of affairs that is the case or obtains." – [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/ Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. ''States of Affairs'']</ref><ref>Wittgenstein, ''[[Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]],'' Proposition 2: What is the case—a fact—is the existence of states of affairs.</ref>

Facts may be understood as [[information]], which makes a true sentence true: "A fact is, traditionally, the worldly correlate of a true proposition, a state of affairs whose obtaining makes that proposition true."<ref name="ocp">Oxford Companion to Philosophy</ref> Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System" is ''about'' the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the [[Solar System]].<ref>Alex Oliver, ''Fact'', in {{cite book
| title     = Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
| first     = Edward
| last      = Craig
| publisher = Routledge, Oxford
| year      = 2005
| isbn        = 0-415-32495-5
}}</ref>

===Correspondence and the slingshot argument===

[[Pascal Engel|Pascal Engel's]] version of the [[correspondence theory of truth]] explains that what makes a sentence true is that it ''corresponds'' to a fact.<ref>{{cite book
| title     = Truth
| first     = Pascal
| last      = Engel
| publisher = McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP
| year      = 2002
| isbn        = 0-7735-2462-2
}}</ref> This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The [[Slingshot argument]] claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing, the [[truth value]] ''true''. If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then one arrives at the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact: ''the truth''.<ref>The argument is presented in many places, but see for example [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Davidson]], ''Truth and Meaning'', in {{cite book
| title     = Truth and Interpretation
| first     = Donald
| last      = Davidson
| publisher = Clarendon Press, Oxford
| year      = 1984
| isbn        = 0-19-824617-X
}}</ref>

===Compound facts===

Any non-trivial true statement about [[reality]] is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of [[object (philosophy)|objects]] and [[property (philosophy)|properties]] or [[relations (philosophy)|relations]]. Facts "possess internal structure, being complexes of objects and properties or relations".<ref name="ocp"/> For example, the fact described by the true statement "Paris is the capital city of France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, there is such a place as France, there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a ''place'' or a ''government'', and so on. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact, that Paris is the capital of France.

Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts.<ref>''Fact'', in ''The Oxford Companion to Philosophy'', Ted Honderich, editor. (Oxford, 1995) {{ISBN|0-19-866132-0}}</ref>

===Fact–value distinction===
{{Main|Fact–value distinction}}

Moral philosophers since [[David Hume#Ethics|David Hume]] have debated whether [[values]] are objective, and thus factual. In ''[[A Treatise of Human Nature]]'' Hume pointed out there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ''ought'' to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what ''is'' the case.  This is called the [[is–ought distinction]].  Those who insist there is a logical gulf between [[Fact–value distinction|facts and values]], such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values (e.g., "it is good to give food to hungry people") from facts (e.g., "people will die if they can't eat"), include [[G. E. Moore]], who called attempting to do so the [[naturalistic fallacy]].

===Factual–counterfactual distinction===
{{Main|Counterfactual conditional}}

[[Factuality]]—what has occurred—can also be contrasted with counterfactuality: what ''might have'' occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or [[subjunctive conditional]] is a conditional (or "if–then") statement indicating what ''would be'' the case if events had been other than they were. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome." This contrasts with an indicative conditional, which indicates what ''is'' (in fact) the case if its antecedent ''is'' (in fact) true—for example, "If you drink this, it will make you well." Such sentences are important to [[modal logic]], especially since the development of [[possible world]] semantics.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

==In mathematics==

In mathematics, a ''fact'' is a statement (called a [[theorem]]) that can be proven by logical argument from certain [[axiom]]s and [[definition]]s.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

==In science==
{{Further|Scientific method|Philosophy of science}}

The definition of a ''scientific fact'' is different from the definition of fact, as it implies [[knowledge]]. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called [[empirical evidence]]. These are central to building [[scientific theories]]. Various forms of observation and measurement lead to fundamental questions about the [[scientific method]], and the scope and validity of [[Philosophy of science|scientific reasoning]].

In the most basic sense, a ''scientific fact'' is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a ''[[hypothesis]]'' or ''[[Scientific theory|theory]]'', which is intended to explain or interpret facts.<ref name="Gower">{{Cite book |last=Gower |first=Barry |title=Scientific Method: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction |publisher=Routledge |year=1997 |isbn=0-415-12282-1}}</ref>

Various [[scholars]] have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation. Philosophers and scientists are careful to distinguish between: 1) ''states of affairs'' in the external world and 2) ''assertions'' of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.<ref name="Ravetz000">{{cite book
| title     = Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems
| first     = Jerome Raymond
| last      = Ravetz
| publisher = Transaction Publishers
| year      = 1996
| isbn        = 1-56000-851-2
}}</ref>

Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have written about numerous questions and theories that arise in the attempt to clarify the fundamental nature of scientific fact.<ref name="Gower"/> Pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:
* the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;<ref name="Ravetz000"/>{{rp|182 fn. 1}}
* whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;<ref name="Ravetz000"/>{{rp|185}}<ref name="Gower"/>{{rp|138}}
* to what extent "facts" are influenced by the mere act of observation;<ref name="Gower"/>{{rp|138}} and
* to what extent factual conclusions are influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.<ref name="Gower"/>{{rp|7}}

Consistent with the idea of [[confirmation holism]], some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. [[Thomas Kuhn]] points out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of other theories. For example, the age of [[fossils]] is based on [[radiometric dating]], which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a [[Poisson process]] rather than a [[Bernoulli process]]. Similarly, [[Percy Williams Bridgman]] is credited with the methodological position known as [[operationalism]], which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined, by the means and assumptions used to measure them.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

===The scientific method===

Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.<ref name="Ravetz000"/>{{rp|181 ff}} Scientific facts are generally believed independent of the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers agree on the outcome.<ref name="The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine">Cassell, Eric J. [https://books.google.com/books?id=K1kjFYrliTMC&dq=%22scientific+fact&pg=PA181 The Nature of Suffering and the Goals of Medicine] ''[[Oxford University Press]]''. Retrieved 16 May 2007.</ref>
In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote ''factual accuracy'' among other interests in scientific study.<ref name="Ravetz000"/>

==In history==
{{Further|Historiography}}

A common rhetorical cliché states, "[[History is written by the winners]]". This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

[[E. H. Carr]] in his 1961 volume ''[[What is History?]]'' argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical [[perspective (cognitive)|perspective]] [[idealistic]] and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean", of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different biases of fact finding – all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past – and that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. The set of highlighted historical facts, and their interpretations, therefore changes over time, and reflect present consensuses.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

==In law==
{{further|Evidence (law)|Trier of fact}}
This section of the article emphasizes common law jurisprudence as primarily represented in Anglo-American–based legal tradition. Nevertheless, the principles described herein have analogous treatment in other legal systems such as [[Civil law (legal system)|civil law]] systems as well.

In most [[common law]] jurisdictions, the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of [[jurisprudence]], and is supported by several well-established standards.<ref name="Estrich000">{{cite book
| title     = American Jurisprudence: A Comprehensive Text Statement of American Case Law
| first     = Willis Albert
| last      = Estrich
| publisher = Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company
| year      = 1952
}}</ref><ref name="Elkouri000">{{cite book
| title     = How Arbitration Works
| first     = Frank
| last      = Elkouri
| publisher = BNA Books
| year      = 2003
| isbn        = 1-57018-335-X|page=305}}</ref> Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.

These include:

* an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a [[cause of action]];<ref name="Bishin000">{{cite book
| title     = Law Language and Ethics: An Introduction to Law and Legal Method
| url     = https://archive.org/details/lawlanguageethic00bish
| url-access = registration
| first     = William R.
| last      = Bishin
| publisher = Foundation Press
| year      = 1972
| id        = Original from the University of Michigan Digitized 2006|page=277| isbn = 9780882773797
}}</ref><ref name="Yale001">{{cite book
| title     = The Yale Law Journal: Volume 7
| url     = https://archive.org/details/jstor-783085
| publisher = Yale Law Journal Co
| year      = 1898
}}</ref>

* the determinations of the [[finder of fact]] after evaluating [[admissible evidence]] produced in a trial or hearing;<ref>''Per'' Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, ''Clarke v. Edinburgh and District Tramways Co'', 1919 S.C.(H.L.) 35, at p 36.</ref>
* a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an [[appellate court]];<ref name="Houston000">{{cite book
| title     = The American and English Encyclopedia of Law
| url     = https://archive.org/details/americanandengl05garlgoog
| first     = John Houston
| last      = Merrill
| publisher = E. Thompson
| year      = 1895
| id        = Original from Harvard University Digitized 2007
}}</ref> and
* any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a [[crime]] has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.<ref name="Bennett000">{{cite book
| title     = Criminal Investigation
| first     = Wayne W.
| last      = Bennett
| publisher = Thomson Wadsworth
| year      = 2003
| isbn        = 0-534-61524-4
}}</ref>

===Legal pleadings===
{{Main|Pleading}}

A party (e.g., [[plaintiff]]) to a civil suit generally must clearly state the relevant allegations of fact that form the basis of a [[Claim (legal)|claim]]. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies, depending on the rules of civil procedure and jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading.<ref>Roy W. McDonald, "Alternative Pleading in the United States". ''Columbia Law Review'', Vol. 52, No. 4 (Apr. 1952), pp. 443–478</ref> In this situation, a party may plead separate sets of facts that when considered together may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This seemingly logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies such as ''[[res judicata]]'' that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts and ruling of the court.<ref>McDonald 1952</ref>

==See also==
* [[Brute fact]]
* [[Common Misconceptions|Common misconceptions]]
* [[Consensus reality]]
* [[Counterfactual history]]
* [[De facto]], or 'from fact'
* [[Factoid]]
* [[False statement]]
* [[Fiction]]
* [[Lie]]
* [[Truth]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
{{Wikiversity|Facing Facts}}
{{Wikiquote}}
* {{SEP|facts|Facts}}

{{Philosophy of science}}
{{Philosophical logic}}
{{Portal bar|Philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Concepts in epistemology]]
[[Category:Concepts in logic]]
[[Category:Concepts in metaphysics]]
[[Category:Concepts in the philosophy of language]]
[[Category:Concepts in the philosophy of science]]
[[Category:Information]]
[[Category:Knowledge]]
[[Category:Logical truth]]
[[Category:Statements]]