'Facts' don't have an independent objective existence, unfortunately. 'Things that occurred' ( the literal etymology of 'facts' ) always require some form of interpretation in order to bring them into our domain of comprehension, and that's where the fuzziness enters.
In epistimology one discusses 'justified belief'; an apparently valid belief obtained in a repeatable and seemingly rigorous manner. But still subject to interpretation through our lens of 'knowledge'.
Think about the current cosmological debates about Dark Energy. Something like 5,000 papers have been published; it seems to be a 'fact' that Dark Energy exists and exerts an influence, but in 200 years from now we might have a justified belief that it does not as some aspects of relativity were incorrect.
> 'Facts' don't have an independent objective existence,
> unfortunately. 'Things that occurred' ( the literal
> etymology of 'facts' ) always require some form
> of interpretation in order to bring them into our
> domain of comprehension, and that's where the
> fuzziness enters.
That etymology is exactly how I understand facts, too. But I think many people don't use the term in that way.
For example, "It's 3:56 pm in the UK" is a fact in my mind.
(It won't be the case in a minute of course.)
The way I see it: facts are like memoized predicates. They are statements of truth within a particular context. Often they need to be re-executed to be kept fresh.
In epistimology one discusses 'justified belief'; an apparently valid belief obtained in a repeatable and seemingly rigorous manner. But still subject to interpretation through our lens of 'knowledge'.
Think about the current cosmological debates about Dark Energy. Something like 5,000 papers have been published; it seems to be a 'fact' that Dark Energy exists and exerts an influence, but in 200 years from now we might have a justified belief that it does not as some aspects of relativity were incorrect.