1

In an answer to my question concerning facts about the past, it was stated: "We can never be certain that any given statement is true so we can never be certain of the facts of whatever matter we are talking about ..." Is this the generally accepted idea about statements of fact: that we can not determine if they are true?

Is there a generally accepted reference that says this? If that is the understanding about truth and facts, then I think that the concept of "fact" is not functional: it does not have an effect.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
    Everything you always wanted to know about Facts, but were afraid to ask: [Crosseyed and Painless](http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/talking+heads/crosseyed+painless_20135079.html) –  Mar 04 '16 at 02:30

2 Answers2

5

The key word in your first quote is "certain". There is a widely held position, called fallibilism, under which no proposition, hypothesis, theory, or whatever, can ever be called truly certain, because it is always possible for us to be mistaken, or to be in a position where we would revise our claim that it is true if we came to possess new evidence. Several pragmatist philosophers, including Peirce and Dewey maintained this position, and also, in a slightly different form, did Popper and Quine.

This is not a skeptical position: it is not saying we don't know anything, or have no reasons to believe what we believe, only that certainty is not achievable. One way to think about fallibilism is that if we supposed the opposite, i.e. that some proposition was infallibly and indubitably true, it would imply that no amount of evidence could possibly persuade us to change our minds about it.

Historically, some rationalist philosophers have attempted to establish some propositions as indubitably true, e.g. Descartes with the Cogito, and some empiricists have attempted to build a kind of foundationalism from experiences that are supposedly primitive and incorrigible, e.g. early Russell and Ayer with the sense-data theory. These attempts have not achieved any wide acceptance, though both still have their defenders, and the question is still debated today.

Bumble
  • 20,757
  • 2
  • 27
  • 65
  • When people became reasonably sure that they could not build a flying machine that had flapping wings, they gave up on it. So I would agree with you, and add: since we are reasonably sure that we cannot absolutely establish facts, truth etc, let's move on to something where we can get something useful accomplished. In other words: I went to Philosophy class, found that Philosophy does not do what I thought it could and *should* do, and I left it. Not sure why the other people stayed in the room. What are they hoping to achieve? –  Mar 04 '16 at 13:19
0

In addition to fallibilism, which skepticism and anti-realism both provide stances on "facts" and what we can be certain of. Both of these traditions have a rich history and are worth looking into.

While these positions are certainly worthy of debate, it's not particularly philosophical to say "Well since I'm a skeptic/anti-realist there's no point in having discussions about anything because no one can ever know for certain".

It's also important to distinguish the concept of "truth" from "fact": if you're committed to logic (which is a main tool of philosophy), you must accept distinction between true and false, even if you believe that we can never know which category a statement belongs to. To say "it is true that there are no truths" is a contradiction in terms - to say "it is true that there are no known facts" is another matter entirely.

Derek Janni
  • 354
  • 1
  • 6
  • Re: "it is true that there are no known facts" - how could you be sure? What if you were wrong... All of Skepticism would collapse! I suppose I am a utilitarian, I don't so much care what knowledge might be true, I care what I can do with some information. Wrong info (something that does not fit what-is) is usually harmful. Right info (flows with what-is) is usually helpful. Beyond that, I don't worry too much, so trying to make these big categories seems like a waste of effort to me. There are other problems to work on. I think that the brain was designed this way, not for logic and 'truth'. –  Mar 04 '16 at 13:16
  • All I'm saying is that "facts," and "truths" belong to separate categories. Statements like "It is true that there are no known facts" could be derived from a proof by contradiction, for instance. Skepticism is not a belief about whether or not truth exists - that is more or less assumed universally. Skepticism is an epistemic belief, a belief about what can be known. Last: I tend to agree that problems like these aren't the best use of time: it's better to just say "fuck it, we'll just work on our best guess" than try to worry about what's a "fact". – Derek Janni Mar 04 '16 at 18:53