Disputable fact

That's very interesting. What if the sentence were written:

"There are two disputable "facts" in life".

or

There are two things in life that are considered facts, which are disputable.

Actually, I can understand what the other people said about it "disputable facts" being an oxymoron, although I am sure that the sentence would be perfectly understood and acceptable in casual use. I think though, if it were written in a book, or a scholorly paper, the meaning would need to be clarified.

I'm inclined to agree with the oxymoron thing. If something is disputable, then it isn't really a fact. I'm also inclined to agree with Phoenix. In casual conversation, this shouldn't be much of an issue.

As a Devil's argument, anything is arguable (i.e. "disputable"). ;-)

Since one can dispute in error why can't a fact be disputable?

Craven- I would infer that once something is in dispute, and there is evidence that contracts the "fact", it is no longer a fact, but merely a supposition.

its a moot question.

I agree with Phoenix and Roberta on this one.

I agree, but the devil's advocate position I took up above is that I see dispute over facts very frequently when there is no contradictory evidence.

In a way I'm saying that people frequently dispute that which can't be disputed. Which is both true and conflicted.

Craven- I think that is called "wishful thinking". Some people, if they don't agree with a fact, will tend to modify it in their own minds to render it consonant with their personal beliefs.

True, thing is the position I was trying to forward is that there is arguably a difference bwteen a successful and unsuccessful dispute, making it possible to dispute something that really can't be successfully disputed.

Anywho, quibbles and bits.

Edit, changed can to can't to reflect the intended meaning.

Craven- I hear ya. Since there are many "facts" that are not etched in stone, one can have a reasonable dispute about the information. The difficulty is determining the reasonable limits of intellectual agnosticism.

To give a simple example, we all "know" that Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492. How do we know it? Because historians and scholars say so, through years of investigation and study. Since we were (obviously) not there, there is little that we can do to refute this assertion as fact.

I was listening to something on the radio yesterday. Some guy called in and stated, in positive terms, that the moon landing in 1969 was faked in a movie studio, and the astronauts merely rode around the earth a few times, and then came back. He based the assertion on some books that he had read.

In this case one must weigh the concept with the total evidence at hand. Since apparently there is overwhelming evidence that there WAS a moon landing, I think that it would be intellectually absurd to champion a contradictory notion, based on some spurious claims.

In general usage, a FACT is indisputable.

However, I seem to remember from my logic class in college that they used the word "fact" to mean any statement; which could by application of logic be proven to be true or false (or neither). So in that definition of the word, a fact could be disputable.

If facts are indisputable, then it would be improper usage to call ANYTHING a fact, because almost everything is potentially disprovable. (At one time it was a 'fact' that man could not fly)

Man can't fly.....or did I miss something?

Thanks for all the replies, and also to Craven and Roberta for their warm welcome in the other threads.

Yes, my line of argument followed rather closely to Craven's, in that the word "disputable" by most definitions, is given as "arguable" or "debatable". That being said, anything in life can be disputed, however intellectually absurd or ridiculous the motives or reasons are. This is because there are apparently quite a number of people who enjoy doing it. Some call them "theorists", but i digress. :wink: (Actually, it was with that group of people in mind, that had caused me to include the word "disputable" in that sentence.)

I'm looking from the standpoint of 'possibilities' rather than the end result. Some may find it uncomfortable, because logically speaking, it sounds incredibly nonsensical to go against a fact that has been proven either scientifically or empirically. True, it doesn't make sense for someone to start a dispute if he's unable to disprove it. But it is possible nonetheless.

Another issue I'd like to raise is one of triviality, but I still find it interesting. If an established fact in the world today is in the future disputed AND disproved, wouldn't it become nothing more than a theory or concept? What if man did not try to dispute that the earth was flat? A wrong theory now, but it was treated as a fact then.

Perhaps in hindsight, I may have used the word "fact" too loosely and indeed, the phrase "disputable fact" does raise a few eyebrows.

Sarius, I thought about facts that eventually become disproved. And I don't dispute Craven and your argument. But this is the English forum. From a language/definition perspective, a fact is indisputable. If this were the Philosophy-Debate forum, I'd probably take a different stance. How's that for waffling, fence-sitting, ducking the issue?

Roberta- That's not waffling. I think that your "take" on the differences between in this issue between language usage and debate is perfectly appropriate.