FACTs

What is ‘fact’? A naïve dictionary (Word web) lookup returned four definitions, each shorter in length than the previous, but also more profound, and left me bewildered and perplexed as to the meaning of this abstract concept. Hardly the thing you expect after reading a dictionary, is it not?

“FACT!!!” you say. “Surely this guy’s mad” you think. “What’s in a fact? It’s one of the easiest words around. Every dumbass knows the meaning of fact. No need to consult a dictionary, just ask someone from primary school…”. However before elapsing into guffaws of laughter, please be polite enough to read through the article and then you may see your folly.

I am preparing for an accursed examination called the CAT. I know you have heard all about it so I don’t fancy describing it here is of any use. Even if you are ignorant of this exam (and believe me, in this case ignorance IS bliss!!), it is not the details of the how and why that consult us here. This exam frequently features 3-5 questions of a type we like to call FIJ (short for Fact-Inference-Judgment) questions. About 4 sentences are given to us and we have to guess (I don’t have any other word for what I do) if they are facts, inferences or judgments. Pretty easy, you reckon. Yes, that was exactly what I reckoned when I first saw these questions. Turns out that these are some of the most feared questions (at least among people I know). After trying to learn the method or trick or whatever psychic powers are needed to solve these questions, at long last, I just gave up. And so I decided to embark upon the voyage of discovery, to discover the meaning of the word ‘FACT’.

So then what is fact? Let’s sample this one -: “A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened”. Now what I don’t understand is whether the lexicographers have been purposefully naughty? First of all who verifies the information? Who decides whether something is the case or not? Pretty fishy don’t you think? To me it seems as if the compilers of this particular dictionary wanted to label as many statements as possible as facts. What about this one – “A concept whose truth can be proved”. On the face of it this definition is clear enough. However the intention is ambiguous. Sample this – John has a white house. Is this statement a fact? Of course it is. Now it can be a wrong fact, but it is certainly provable either way. Ok check out this one – Morality is one of those basic aspects of humanity that can’t fit into one or two academic fields. Experts say this is. Baffled?? If not then you have got to contact me and teach me. But if yes, then don’t worry – so was I. How do you verify that??

There were two more meanings of ‘fact’ as I said earlier but they seemed to me nothing more than different permutations of the two listed above. They definitely shed no new light on the matter. But what gobbledygook you say. You are happy with your own definition of what can be considered fact and what can’t be. “Exactly” – that is my point. That brings us to another problem. Is fact at all different from judgment?

Recently the Archaeological Survey of India proclaimed that the Adam’s Bridge is a purely natural structure and has not been made by any living being –dead or alive, man or monkey. Those of you who know the”history” of this bridge can comprehend the significance of this statement. Obviously a lot of people, for different reasons, took offense and created a clamorous hue and cry over the issue and got this “fact” repealed. Why? Was it not verifiable? No, that was certainly not the case. Indeed it had been scientifically ascertained that the physical feature in question was not man made. The problem with this particular fact was that it went against popular sentiment (did it?). So can we conclude that the “verification” part of the definition includes acknowledgment of belief (maybe popular, possibly despotic) 1? “The sun is at the center of the solar system and all the planets, including earth, revolve around It.” is a fact taught to kids in school. Not long ago2 this was not the case.

Wikipedia says that fact is “something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation”. The important point here has been highlighted. So who comes up with standards of evaluation? You and me (not literally of course), and people like us. People with all their biases and preconceived notions and beliefs etc. 500 years ago it was the church who decided standards of evaluation, today others who have replaced the church in authority. In my case it is my coaching institute which decides what is fact and what judgment (no doubt in a most moronic fashion).

Another strange and confusing interpretation I found (yet again on Wikipedia) that resolves no doubts is - Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. For example, the statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is made true by the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. The problem is that this definition resolves fact but transfers its ambiguities to the word true (truth is another pandora's box altogether).

And in the end I will leave you with some more food for thought. Take any one definition of “fact”. E.g. take the visibly simple one - “A fact is any statement or concept whose truth can be proved”. Is this statement in itself a fact or is it a mere opinion? So with all its defects is fact prone to recursion as well!?!

1Due to this debacle some ministers have now decided to endorse the fact that Lord Ram definitely existed once upon a time, a fact that is quite unverifiable as of now. What an irony?

2Considering that the age of the solar system itself is of the order of billions of years, 500 can be said to be not long ago!!