Prior listening to this week’s NPR podcast and discussing in class the topic of fact versus truth, it had never crossed my mind that there is actually a difference between the two. They’re considered synonyms of one another and they relate, but there are so many ways to interpret their meanings. As Steven said in class, “truth is relative to the person and fact is universal”. Facts are generally presumed to be accurate statements, which can range from something that has been scientifically proven, or events that have occurred in history (even one’s personal, past events). I feel as though in order for a fact to be a fact, it must have been witnessed or confirmed, and not only from one source. For example, Abraham Lincoln died on April 15, 1865, and we would consider that to be a fact, but we question the truth of why was he killed. No one can change the fact that he died, but who really knows the truth behind the motive of his assassination. Anyone can make up his or her own truth to something.
When we learn concepts, we don’t learn them as truths, but as facts. One wouldn’t say that 2+2=4 is a truth even though it is true, so it almost sounds contradicting. It’s a fact because when something’s true generally it’s something that has the potential to be proven false. Facts may be altered, but never changed holistically. As confusing as that sounded, what I’m trying to say is that the point of a fact is to defend a truth. “Truth is not just factually accurate, but also utterly honest” and “it depends upon a temporal circumstance.”