Facts versus truth

When I first read Faulkner’s quote, I was perplexed. I had always considered “facts” and “truth” to be synonyms. Even the definition of each word cross references the other:

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth. Truth: conformity with fact or reality; a verified or indisputable fact.

Certainly facts are used as proof of what is undeniably the truth, but are they truly interchangeable words or do they actually have different meanings and usage?

At this point I was curious enough about the similarities and differences between these two words to conduct some Google searches. 

I learned that not everyone believes that the two words in question are synonymous. Some folks actually differentiate between the two words using diametrically opposed logic. One site argued that facts can be fleeting, enduring for but a moment. For example, the fact of someone’s location on a fast-moving train changes every instant. Truth, on the other hand is a more enduring type of fact, this source claimed.

Another site argued that if it’s a fact now, it will be a fact in the future, whereas truth is more temporal. Facts indicate a universal truth, while truth depends upon temporal circumstances. For example, that the sun always rises in the east and sets in the west is a fact. It will never change.

I found an interesting site, differencebetween.net, that provided four facts about facts and truths:

• Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
• Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
• Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
• Facts can also answer the ‘where,’ ‘when,’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

So what?

Why this quest for the facts to help acquire the truth about facts and truth? Well, I personally experienced exactly what Faulkner was referring to in his quote at the top of this posting.

Here is one fact. This past Thursday, in the early afternoon, I posted a blog, Bad history, which was critical of the Tennessee Tea Party’s initiative to change American history textbooks to be more Founding Fathers-friendly.

Another fact is, as anyone who knows me knows, I am a huge fan of Stephen Colbert’s nightly Comedy Central show, The Colbert Report, which is broadcast at 11:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday nights. On his Tuesday night show this past week, in his “The Word” segment, Colbert did a satirical piece critical of the Tennessee Tea Party’s desire to re-write history.

A third fact is that I typically go to bed at around 10 p.m. each weeknight. In order to watch The Colbert Report, I set my DVR to record it, along with The Daily Show. I usually watch both of the recorded shows the next evening.

Based upon these three accurate facts, one might conclude that I, shall we say, “appropriated” this particular topic for my last post; that I watched the Tuesday night recording of The Colbert Report on Wednesday evening, saw his segment about the Tennessee Tea Party’s wish to re-write history, and unabashedly stole the idea for my blog, which was not posted until Thursday.

But that is NOT the truth.

Here is another fact. On Wednesday night, which is when I would normally have watched Tuesday night’s The Colbert Report episode, my wife and I went out to dinner in Boston. By the time we got home to Worcester, it was after 9:30...almost bedtime. We decided to forgo our usual routine of watching the recordings of the prior night’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Instead,we headed up to our bedroom, where we watched reruns of House Hunters and House Hunters International on HGTV.

Thus, it was not until Thursday night, hours after I had posted my blog, when my wife and I watched the recordings of The Colbert Report from the previous two nights. When Colbert’s “The Word” segment began, I said to my wife, “Hey, that’s what I just blogged about earlier today.” She wasn’t particularly impressed.

The fact is that I didn’t know, when I posted about the Tennessee Tea Party on my blog, that Colbert had done a segment on it two nights earlier. In this case, the facts would lead one to believe that I based my blog posting on something I saw on The Colbert Report. But the truth is that I posted my blog about the Tennessee Tea Party before I saw or even knew that Colbert had aired such a segment.

That is how I came to understand what William Faulkner was talking about when he said “Facts and truth really don’t have much to do with each other.”

 And that’s the truth.

Comments

[Sandy]

Hmmm So "the truth is that I posted my blog about the Tennessee Tea Party before I saw or even knew that Colbert had aired such a segment" means that it is not a fact but just what you believe according to one of the definitions you posted. "Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation" The fact is that you have totally confused me as to what the real facts are in this case! :-)

[Doobster]

The truth is that you have now totally confused ME as to what the real truth is in this case!

Jeez, now you've got me all tangled up in my own underwear.

[Larry]

Hi Mark: I have to agree with Sandy that the facts you claim to be facts are not really facts and do not establish the conclusion or truth that you wrote your blog without first seeing the subject on Colbert. The "facts" that you "typically" go to bed at 10:00 pm, set your recorder before you go to bed, and "usually" watch the recorded shows the next evening are not facts but mere statements of past behavior. "Typically" and "usually" could mean that in about 50% of the times, you go to bed before 10 and watch the shows the next evening and the other 50% of the times, you actually stay up and watch the Colbert show and don't record the show. Even if you always to to bed at 10 (which I guess is not true) and always watch the recorded show the next evening would not necessarily lead one to conclude that you did it this time. In other words, past behavior does not establish facts of present conduct. The only facts that matter here are: You went to bed at 10 and did not watch Colbert (the mere fact that you went to bed at 10 does not prove that you did not watch Colbert - you could have secretly gotten up at 11:30 to watch the show on the pretense that you had to go to the bathroom or were hungry and needed something to eat, or had to complete a work assignment that you had forgotten about), you taped the show, and you did not watch the taped show until Thursday after you had written your blog. The facts that you went to Boston, did not get home until 9:30, and were too tired to watch the show are not relevant to what might have happened here. You had plenty of opportunity to watch the show before Thursday even though you went to Boston - you could have watched it at any time during the day on Wednesday, or feigning tiredness, could have watched it after Sandy had gone to bed, or watched it Thursday morning before writing your blog . Therefore, the truth or the ultimate fact of this case, that you wrote your blog before watching the Colbert show, depends entirely on your statement of what happened. Often, we may never know what the real facts are because, like the OJ Simpson or Trayvon Martin cases, key witnesses are dead, scientific evidence may be interpreted in different ways, and eye witnesses may interpret what happened differently, based on their viewpoint, background, and general prejudices. I agree with Faulkner that facts and truths don't have much to do with each other especially when facts are interpreted by human beings. Even when everyone can agree on a set of facts, people will give different interpretations and therefore arrive at a different conclusion. The only real truths in this world are mathematical and scientific theorems - and of course, death and taxes.

[Doobster]

Lars, you lost me when you said, “I have to agree with Sandy....”

For your information and edification, in contemporary American usage, “typically” and “usually” do not mean “about 50% of the time.” Typically means normally or commonly while usually means regularly or customarily.

The truth is that if I went to bed by 10 p.m. and recorded The Colbert Report and watched it the next day only 50% of the time, I would have stated that as one of my facts. Instead, I chose the more accurate and correct adverbs.

In my defense, and unlike the OJ Simpson or Trayvon Martin cases, none of the witnesses are dead. The only other witness is Sandy, who was with me the entire time. However, based upon her previous comment, I must treat her as a hostile witness. But thank you for elevating my little rant about the Tennessee Tea Party’s drive to re-write history to that of infamous murder cases.

[Sandy]

Larry, I must say you have too much time on your hands!! Is that the "truth" or a "fact?"

[Larry]

Hi Mark and Sandy: "Typically" and "usually" are not accurate adverbs, even accepting their definition to mean regularly or customarily. This still indicates that you tape the show and watch it the next day less than 100% of the time - it could mean that you do this 51%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or anything less than 100% of the time but probably more than 50% of the time. However, my point was that even if we accept the fact that you did it 100% of the time in the past does not conclusively establish that you did it this time. If you told a stranger that you had done this in the past 100%, I admit that this fact would be persuasive to the stranger that you had done it this time and therefore stole the idea from Colbert. However, if you had told the stranger that you only usually or typically do this, I would guess that the stranger would not conclude that you had done it now without asking you some follow-up questions. On the other hand, because I am not a stranger and I already know about your keen intelligence and creativity, I would have immediately concluded that in this case, you did not follow your normal routine and wrote your blog before you had seen it on Colbert.

Sandy, I can state without hesitation and it is a fact that I have too much time on my hands. Judy, Jeff, and Craig will verify this as well as Hershel and MaryAnn. Therefore, this fact is verifiable and indisputable. As such, it is the truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Doobster]

Lars, based upon your comment that a stranger would question my veracity in claiming that I posted my blog BEFORE seeing the segment on the Colbert Report, that is precisely why our parents taught us as young children never to talk to strangers.

Except, of course, at Halloween, when not only talking to strangers, but even accepting candy from strangers, is a perfectly acceptable thing for a young child to do.

[Doobster]

"Too much time on one's hands" is a qualitative evaluation and a value expression, not a factual statement.

How much time is "too much" time? It's a perception of time. Time's value (and whether one has too much or too little of it) is subjective, and can only be determined by the user of the time.

Maybe, to you, there aren't enough hours in the day to do whatever it is that you want to or need to do. If that's the case, then "too much time" is the opposite of how you feel. It's also temporal, in that at times you may feel bored and that you have more spare time on your hand, but at other times you may feel stressed-out because there simply isn't enough time for you to accomplish what ever it is that needs doing.

Others, including Judy, Jeff, Craig, Hershel, MaryAnn, and even Sandy, can express their opinions, but that in no way makes it a "verifiable and indisputable" fact...even if you concur with their opinions.

Having said that, and given how much time you've invested over the past few days in commenting on my blog, I share Sandy's OBSERVATION and her OPINION that you just may, in fact, just have a bit too much time on your hands. And that's fine by me, by the way.

[Larry]

Mark: you may find this hard to believe but I somewhat agree with your above discussion. "Too much time on one's hands" is a value expression, but when I made that statement, I was assuming certain underlying facts: I have no job, I drive golf balls four or five times a week, I walk five miles each day on the Legacy Trail, I follow the stock market and CNBC several hours each day, I watch a few hours of TV each night, I can travel whenever I want and whatever day of the week I want. All these activities are discretionary and I can choose to do them or not."Too much time on one's hands" is as you say a value judgment, but like pornography, you know it when you see it. Based on the common understanding of that phrase and if these underlying facts were presented to a jury of my peers, I would hazard a bet that a jury would find as a matter of fact that I have too much time on my hands. In fact, already seven of my close friends would probably find that I have too much time on my hands. All we need are five more independent thinkers (In civil trials, you don't need 12 jurors, depending on state law, six or nine may suffice). However, as you so astutely noted, Too much time on one's hands is a temporal fact and may last for a period of hours, days, or months. One week ago, when I was completing our taxes and given the complexity of some of the issues I had to deal with, I would say I did not have too much time on my hands - As proof, I did not do any of the activities I mentioned above but spent most of my time researching tax issues on the computer. As you indicate, having too much time on one's hands is a state of feeling and while others may make a judgment based on facts they may have observed or in talking directly to me or observing my rambling discourse on Mark's blog, the only judgment that really counts is how I feel and whether I feel that I have enough time in the day to do what I want to do.