Check out some similar questions!

valinors_sorrow · May 20, 2006, 06:08 PM

Since we use these words here now and then, I've been thinking...

And although I have thoughts of my own about this...

I am really interested in what everyone here may think about the difference between...

TRUTH or FACT

Thank you.

aqua@home · May 20, 2006, 06:18 PM

Hi, when I was younger I heard a definition of OPINION vs. FACT. I know that's not what your asking but it seems close to me.

The difference is that FACT can be proven true or false. OPINION cannot be proven either way.

I think in your question TRUTH would have to come with proof of it being true.

ScottGem · May 20, 2006, 07:56 PM

A fact is something that can be proven with hard evidence, i.e. documentation, physical evidence, etc.

A truth is something that can be proven by a combination of fact and logic.

An Opinion is something that cannot be proven specifically. A Valid opinion is one that has at least some basis in fact or logic. If there is no basis for the opinion that its not valid.

At least those are the definitions I go by.

Tommyp!972 · May 20, 2006, 08:18 PM

The facts are 100% undeniable but truth is how we interpret those facts.. everyone's truth about the facts can vary.. IMO

Just because its true to you doesn't make it a fact
Just because it's a fact doesn't make it true

aqua@home · May 20, 2006, 10:32 PM

About what Tommyp!072 said... I don't understand how something could be fact and not true. Anyone?

Tommyp!972 · May 20, 2006, 10:47 PM

Truth is in the eye of the beholder
One mans truth is another mans lies
Its just how WE interpret

magprob · May 20, 2006, 11:40 PM

Fact may be seen as true through empirical observation. There is no empirical formula to gauge truth. It is either true or it is not.

valinors_sorrow · May 21, 2006, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by aqua@home

About what Tommyp!072 said...I don't understand how something could be fact and not true. Anyone?

Though not a perfect fit to what you are asking...

A paradox is something where conflicting facts are nullified by a larger perhaps invisible truth.

Example:

"I must give it away to keep it"... is often used in recovery circles.
On face value I must have "it" in order to give it away.
But if I give it away, then I can't be keeping it too.
So how does one keep it, if they are giving it away?

So does that help any, Aqua?

And thanks for all the comments, everyone - those who haven't posted, feel free to also!

magprob · May 21, 2006, 07:41 AM

A great truth is that when we give, we keep the universal supply line open, thereby receiving at the same time. The fact of the matter is, when one gives nothing back, the supply line is shut off and that persons supply stops. Truth, the law of the universe, fact, what we observe from the way we perceive that truth and react upon it.

valinors_sorrow · May 21, 2006, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

A fact is something that can be proven with hard evidence, i.e. documentation, physical evidence, etc.

A truth is something that can be proven by a combination of fact and logic.

An Opinion is something that cannot be proven specifically. A Valid opinion is one that has at least some basis in fact or logic. If there is no basis for the opinion that its not valid.

At least those are the definitions I go by.

Good points Scott.
I like the fact definition.
I like the truth definition, except it make me then wonder how one defines "logic" or where it fits in with fact or truth as a definition.

And, although I deliberately didn't ask about opinions (I only asked for them lol), I disagree since opinions are always valid to the author (ask any one of them lol!) and are not really "valid" to others as much as they are agreed (or disagreed) with, which doesn't go to validity in my book.

Opinions may up their ante to be agreed with if the author can back their opinion with factual or truthful information but it is still agreement that the opinion gains. The more agreement the opinion gains, the more "valid" it may look to others but it still is only an impression of validity, a kind of approval some peope are willing to go with and not research themselves. This is the mechanism by which urban legends and such can acquire a foothold, I believe.

It seems strange or even illogical to me that you claim an opinion can't be "proven specifically" and then go on to define how it can be valid or not valid (which suggests it CAN be proven specifically) :confused:
Definition of valid - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

ScottGem · May 21, 2006, 12:36 PM

That's why I made a specific delineation. Lets say someone posts an opinion that the moon is made of green cheese. Is such an opinion valid since it flies in the face of established fact? On the flip side lets say someone says there is a God. There are logical arguments that can be made to back up that opinion. Not everyone will accept those logical arguments, but they do exist.

My point is that anyone can state an opinion. But my feeling is that if you do so, you need to be able to support that opinion, If you can't then you should recant it.

valinors_sorrow · May 21, 2006, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

On the flip side lets say someone says there is a God. There are logical arguments that can be made to back up that opinion. Not everyone will accept those logical arguments, but they do exist.

So let me get this right...

You are saying that while the God opinion is backed by logical argument that isn't universally accepted but should be, it is still not specifically proved?

Nice loop of nonlogic you got there there. :eek:

Undoubtedly the next thing to take place is some off the path definition of logic that suits the argument rather than be accurate.

aqua@home · May 21, 2006, 12:59 PM

Very good question Valinors! I tried to put it in your last answer but was not allowed.

ScottGem · May 21, 2006, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

So let me get this right...

you are saying that while the God opinion is backed by logical argument that isn't universally accepted but should be, it is still not specifically proved?

Nice loop of nonlogic you got there there. :eek:

Undoubtedly the next thing to take place is some off the path definition of logic that suits the argument rather than be accurate.

No, I'm not saying the arguments "Should" be accepted. I'm saying that an argument can be made that some people will accept. Unless an argument can be conclusively disproven with hard fact or where no facts exist to to support the argument, then a person is entitled to that opinion.

Look at the argument that the figure to Jesus's right in the Last Supper is Mary Magdelene. It does look female. However, there is other evidence that DaVinci painted John as an androgynous figure in other paintings. It appears that evidence exists that can support either opinion. In my opinion that figure is female. But I can concede that other people can have a different opinion. There are entitled to their belief. But the person who believes the moon is made of green cheese is NOT entititled to that belief.

valinors_sorrow · May 21, 2006, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

An Opinion is something that cannot be proven specifically. A Valid opinion is one that has at least some basis in fact or logic.

Be patient with me, I still don't understand...

How does a "valid opinion" differ from an "opinion that is proved specifically"?

A direct explanation rather than citing examples would work best, I think. (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)

And do me a favour please and leave all the God and Davinci code stuff out of it; that really doesn't help with clarity since they tend to be controversial elements in their own right?

Here is the Webster definition of proof just for giggles:
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

aqua@home · May 21, 2006, 01:29 PM

Isn't an opinion just something someone believes to be true or false. If it has be proven one way or the other then isn't it considered to be fact. A "valid opinion" has nothing to do with it, does it? As with religion, for most people, religious beliefs are just that. Something one believes to be true. Everyone believes different things for different reasons. They may believe because of some sort of "proof" they have accepted to be true.

magprob · May 21, 2006, 04:08 PM

OK, hold on just one minute there! Are you trying to tell me that the moon IS NOT MADE OF GREEN CHEESE? The last guy I talked to that just got back from the moon told me in no uncertain terms that that moon is made of green cheese and here you go scott trying to tell me that it isn't! What I want to know is have you been to the moon or is it just your opinion that it is not made of green cheese? If you have been to the moon then now I have two opinions to sort through and try to come up with the most valid opinion. If you have not been to the moon then what I want to know is just exactly what are you basing the facts that led to your opinion which states quite catagorically that no, the moon is not made of green cheese. Heck, he even gave me a chunk of the green moon cheese that he brought back from the moon but it had gone bad because these little bugs that accidentally got aboard his spaceship had gotten into it, they were lunar tics, I think he called them! No, I really think the moon is made of green cheese but then, that is just my opinion because that's what my friend told me and he ought to know since he was on the moon... a while back.
"One small slice of cheese for man, one giant chunk of cheese for mankind."

Just the facts mam, just the facts.

valinors_sorrow · May 21, 2006, 04:14 PM

Lol MAGPROB (I fear I will accidentally call you magpie one day so I apologise in advance if I ever do!)

Scott: I did some research and now wonder if you have confused the term "valid" with "sound" - could this be what you were thinking of?

Soundness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ScottGem · May 21, 2006, 08:10 PM

I'm not sure I can explain this any better than I have. Let me try to put it this way. An opinion that can be completely disproven by fact is an invalid opinion. Anything else might be considered a valid opinion.

What I'm trying to do is differentiate between someone who makes an outrageous statement that is untrue and trying to justify it because "everyone is entitled to an opinion".

aqua@home · May 21, 2006, 09:21 PM

I see what you are saying Scott. I think you have a point in your last post. Good opinion.

(Sorry, I tried to comment but I couldn't)