But, are they?
These oft used expressions are what we pull out of our argument arsenal every now and then, but the problem is, are we quoting actual facts, or are we just trying to get a point of view across?
What are facts?
There seems to be a wide disparity of explanations on what facts are, depending on what purpose they’re used for.
We’re all familiar with a certain line of information being put forward as factual in defence of a particular ‘matter’, but are these facts?
Can we disprove these facts with other facts, and are these facts factual or otherwise.
The real facts may never be known because they may well be buried underneath a welter of circumstantial information that is likely to be factual but can be twisted any which way.
Would we be better off with conjecture?
To be honest, I’m not quite sure what conjecture is, but at a guess, conjecture is a series of assumptions based on facts (oh no, here we go again!)
Over here we built a fence to keep out the rabbits.
Walls, fences, it didn’t work. It cost a lot of money but didn’t achieve the intended result.
Humans are more inventive than rabbits. We seem to be better keeping them in, rather than keeping them out.
And I’m off track yet again, distracted by current affairs.
I just wanted to say that any story can be based on fact, and then generally go down the path of conjecture. Historically, we might keep people who have died alive, places that have disappeared in place, follow history accurately for a while and then make assumptions of what might have happened rather than what did, especially if there are gaps.
Unfortunately, it involves a lot of study, and, sometimes, the unearthing of a fact that no one really knew about.
Make of that what you will.