These are the facts

[DRSB]

[DRSB]

Which means that a statement that was is no longer a fact.

[Svartalf]

You mean that "Joan of Arc was burned at the stake in Rouen" is not a fact?

[DRSB]

You mean that "Joan of Arc was burned at the stake in Rouen" is not a fact?

I am following the general drift of the thread, pushing it, so to say.

[Seth]

This is clearly not the case. A thing can be fact and yet can not exist, not be measurable, not be observable and not subject to proof of truth or falsity.

Fact: I just thought about taking a piss.

Neither you nor I can measure, observe or prove the truth or falsity of that fact, but it is in fact a fact.

So whether something is a fact or not does not depend on the ability of some person somewhere to measure, observe or prove that it exists. A thing either exists (or existed) or does not exist, and the form (and duration) of existence can take many different forms, some of them observable and measurable and some of them not. Whether or not the thing is observed, measured or proven does not change the nature of its existence, in whatever form it may exist, it only changes your perception of its existence and therefore the degree of credibility that you give to a claim of its existence.

The problem comes when the metrics set forth as sufficient proof of existence or truth are themselves biased in a way that purports to claim that an actual fact is not in fact a fact.

In other words, what you claim is not a fact may in fact be a fact, and what you claim is a fact may in fact not be a fact, depending on the quality and credibility of your measurements, observations and analysis and conclusions drawn therefrom.

And that's the fact, Jack!