Fact, and Truth

[organon1973]

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness.

What do you think?

[Vik]

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness.

What do you think?

Are we talking about Rand's concepts, different concepts, or are you fishing for our understanding of the concepts?

Here is Rand's concept of "truth":

"Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics."

(Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p.63)

And here is Rand's concept of "fact":

"A fact is merely a way of saying "This is something which exists in reality" -- as distinguished from imagination or misconception or error. So you could say "That the American Revolution took place is a fact", or "That George Washington existed is a fact". In the first case you refer to an enormously complex series of events over a period of years. In the second case you refer to just one individual. Both are facts."

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 242

"...when we say something is a fact, we distinguish primarily from error, lie or any aberration of consciousness. And it serves another function: it delimits the concept "existence" or "reality".

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 243

When I plug those into your post, I conclude the following:

1) The clause "of which one is certain" is redundant. If a proposition is true, it's factual.

2) Truth-hood must indeed be assessed, but I wouldn't call it "validation". "Valid" means that a mental product was formed in such a way that it is related to the facts of reality. Truth-hood, however, has to do with correspondence.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Vik

[itsjames]

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness.

What do you think?

Dictionary.com defines truth as "conformity with fact or reality". So, I think a truth is a statement about a fact of reality, but it is not the fact itself. Truth presupposes a consciousness capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood.

[Grames]

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness.

What do you think?

Perception is a non-propositional justification of some facts and non-propositional identification of some truths.

It is a contradiction to consider any fact to be untrue. You were in error if what you thought was certain turns out not to be so.

[Vik]

Perception is a non-propositional justification of some facts and non-propositional identification of some truths.

It is a contradiction to consider any fact to be untrue. You were in error if what you thought was certain turns out not to be so.

Perception justifies propositions.

Facts simply are.

Truth is the product of an assessment about the factuality of a proposition.

[Grames]

Perception justifies propositions.

Facts simply are.

Truth is the product of an assessment about the factuality of a proposition.

Good catch. I should have written "Perception is a non-propositional grasp of some facts and non-propositional identification of some truths."

[DavidOdden]

"True" and "truth" are not interchangeable.

[khaight]

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness.

'Fact' is metaphysical -- a fact is an aspect of reality. 'Truth' is epistemological -- a grasp, identification or recognition of a fact by a consciousness. To say that a fact 'is true' commits a category error.

To say that an identification of a fact is true is to say that the means or method by which the consciousness grasped the fact is valid; to say that an identification of a fact is false is to say that the means or method by which the consciousness attempted to grasp the fact is not valid. (To say that an alleged identification of a fact is arbitrary is to say that the consciousness is asserting its truth apart from any means or method.)

Technically, an identification performed by a means which could not have operated any way other than it did is neither true nor false, because such methods of awareness are technically neither valid nor invalid. They just are. This is why percepts are neither true nor false, while perceptual judgments are. Perceptual judgments are conceptual identifications of facts given in perception; conceptualization is volitional and therefore can be done incorrectly.

[A is A]

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness.

What do you think?

I think your statements are not clear and confusing. If not all facts are true, then which are and which aren't? Are only certain facts true? Are only factual truths true? If certainty is the criterion for truth, then "I think, therefore, I am" is true because Descartes was certainly certain about that! What does "truth requires validation by such a consciousness" mean? Which truth? The certain ones? Some factual ones? Does falsehood not require validation? If a truth is a fact, but not all facts are true, are some truths untrue? What is an uncertain truth?

I don't get where you're coming from or where you're going with your statements. How about some context? How can you make assertions like this without context and argumentation?

Edited April 1, 2010 by A is A

[Vik]

"True" and "truth" are not interchangeable.

Would you say that "true" designates a recognized correspondence to reality?

Would you say that "truth" designates an identification of fact?

[organon1973]

2) Truth-hood must indeed be assessed, but I wouldn't call it "validation". "Valid" means that a mental product was formed in such a way that it is related to the facts of reality. Truth-hood, however, has to do with correspondence.

But mustn't correspondence (of a proposition, to that which is) be validated, before one knows it as truth?

[dream_weaver]

But mustn't correspondence (of a proposition, to that which is) be validated, before one knows it as truth?

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

"Validation" I take to be a broader term than "proof," one that subsumes any process of establishing an idea's relationship to reality, whether deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, or perceptual self-evidence.

Validating the concept of 'dog' can be established by pointing to instances of dogs. Validating the concept of 'blue' can be established by pointing to instances of things which are blue. First level concepts can usually be validated ostensively.

To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality.

When in doubt about the meaning or the definition of a concept, the best method of clarification is to look for its referents—i.e., to ask oneself: What fact or facts of reality gave rise to this concept? What distinguishes it from all other concepts?