Sunday, March 23, 2014

Is that a fact?

The can be evidence for something without it reaching the status of fact. For example, you can agree that the Zapruder film is evidence that there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, but still also think the preponderance of the evidence supports the "Oswald alone" theory. So it might not be a fact, but it could be supported by evidence. In fact I am inclined to think that something can have the status of a proven fact only if there is evidence sufficient to allow no other conclusion but one. So, there may be evidence supporting various candidates for "Jack the Ripper," but none is sufficient to make any of them a fact. 
Though, there is an ambiguity in the use of the word "fact." It can be either something that is true, or something that is proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why when people use words like "fact" and "opinion" I always ask for a further definition. "Faith" is another word in that category. 

4 comments:

Heuristics said...

Evidence however always underdetermine a conclusion. No matter how much evidence you bring to any question you can always come up with an alternate explanation.

Keen Reader said...

There is also fact as meaning something I know to be true but cannot prove true to anybody else.

planks length said...

Keen Reader,

Example? Not sure what you mean.

IlĂ­on said...

"In fact I am inclined to think that something can have the status of a proven fact only if there is evidence sufficient to allow no other conclusion but one."

There are precious few facts (or "facts") in all of creation that can meet that criterion. The ones that do tend not to be of the empirical sort. For, as 'heuristics' points out: "Evidence however always underdetermine a conclusion."