Distinguishing Facts, Truth, and Information

While often used interchangeably, facts, truth, and information represent distinct concepts, especially when examined closely in philosophy, law, and data management.

---

Facts vs. Truth

The main difference lies in their nature: a fact is an objective, verifiable reality, whereas truth is often a more subjective, philosophical concept—a property of a claim or belief that aligns with reality or an accepted standard.

Aspect	Fact	Truth
Nature	Objective, indisputable, concrete reality. Exists independent of belief.	Subjective or universal concept, often a property of a proposition or belief.
Verifiability	Can be proven or verified through evidence, measurement, or demonstration.	Refers to the state or quality of being in accordance with reality or an accepted standard.
Change	Does not change (or only changes if the physical reality changes).	Can be more fluid, influenced by perspective, belief, or context.
Relationship	Facts are what make a statement or proposition true.	Truth is the quality of a statement or belief that corresponds to facts.

Examples

Category	Fact	Truth (a true proposition or belief)
Science	Water boils at $100^{\circ }\text{C}$ at standard atmospheric pressure.	"It is true that 100∘C is the boiling point of water" (A claim about the fact).
History	World War II ended in 1945.	The historical truth is that the war caused immense suffering (A broader, accepted reality informed by facts).
Personal	I have a headache right now. (Can be verified by brain scans or self-reporting).	Honesty is the best policy. (A value or principle, accepted as a general 'truth' by many).
Observation	The car is red. (A verifiable observation).	The red car is beautiful. (A subjective claim/belief that is "true" to the speaker).

---

Why We Say "The Truth" in Court

In a legal setting, witnesses are sworn to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This choice of wording emphasizes a greater scope than simply listing a few facts:

• Seeking Substantive Truth: A trial's goal is to establish the substantive truth—the actual reality of what happened—based on the evidence presented. It's not just about a collection of isolated facts, but the coherence and completeness of a witness's account in relation to the event.

• Beyond Isolated Facts: "The truth" encompasses a person's full and honest account, including their perspective, recollection, and intent. A witness could state a fact (e.g., "The light was green") but omit another critical fact (e.g., "I ran the green light while texting"), which would render their testimony untruthful.

• A Property of Statements: From a philosophical perspective, truth is a property of a statement, assertion, or proposition. When a witness swears to tell "the truth," they are promising that the statements they make will conform to reality (the facts) as they know it. Swearing on a set of independent facts (like "The Earth is round") would be meaningless; they are swearing on the veracity of their claims.

• The Burden of Proof: Ultimately, the court combines the testimonial truths and proven facts to reach a formal legal truth, which is a finding of fact based on the legal standard of proof (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt).

---

Information vs. Facts

Information and facts relate to each other in a hierarchical way, often illustrated by the Data-Information-Knowledge hierarchy. A fact can be a unit of information, but information is typically processed, organized, or contextualized data/facts.

Aspect	Fact	Information
Definition	A specific, verifiable, and objective datum or reality.	Processed, organized, or structured data/facts that convey context and meaning.
Context	Lacks inherent context on its own.	Provides context and answers "who, what, where, and when."
Relationship	Raw building blocks; a single verifiable data point.	A meaningful collection and presentation of facts.

Examples

Category	Fact (Raw Data)	Information (Contextualized Facts)
Measurement	37.5 (A number)	The patient's temperature is $37.5^{\circ }\text{C}$, which is normal. (Fact + context)
Sales	1,000 units (A number)	Sales increased by 1,000 units in the second quarter due to the new marketing campaign. (Fact + context + analysis)
Location	40.7128∘N,74.0060∘W(Raw coordinates)	The accident occurred in New York City at the intersection of two major streets. (Facts + meaning)

A comment on the maid fine

 A comment on the maid fine

You know, you see all sorts of things in the paper these days. But every once in a while, something just hits you. Like this story about the maid in Singapore. Now, you hear about a lot of things. A guy steals a loaf of bread, he goes to jail. Someone robs a bank, he goes to jail. But this? This is something else entirely.

Here's a woman. A maid. She's 53 years old, been at it for decades. She's got her main job, she's working, she's doing what she's supposed to do. She's on her rest days, her days off, the days you're supposed to put your feet up and maybe watch a little television. But she doesn't. She goes and cleans a few houses for a few hours, just trying to make a little extra money. Coffee money, as the fellow who wrote this put it.

And for that, for trying to make a little extra money on her own time, they fine her $13,000. Thirteen thousand dollars. That's a lot of money. The person she worked for, the one who hired her illegally, they got a fine too. Seven thousand dollars. The person who paid her for her work, they got fined less than she did. It's like fining the person who took the job more than the person who offered it. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it?

And the government says it's about "protecting workers." Protecting them from what? From working? From making a little extra cash on their day off? It's like they're saying, "Look, we've designed a system for you. A system where you work for one person, for a certain amount of money, and you don't even think about stepping outside that line. We'll decide how you spend your time, even your own time." It's a funny kind of protection, isn't it? 🤷‍♂️

---

They talk about how this woman didn't have a valid work pass for part-time work. And I suppose that's true. The law's the law. But sometimes, you have to look at the law and ask yourself, "Does this make any sense?" We bring in foreign workers because, as they say, "Singaporeans don't want these jobs." We pay them, and then we make it so they can't even try to earn a little more. You see all these commercials on television about the hardworking spirit, and the value of a good day's work. They praise it, they celebrate it. As long as it's the right kind of work, I guess. As long as it's within the system.

This woman worked for four years for this one person. Four years. Both of them were happy with the arrangement. There was no exploitation, no one was complaining. The only person complaining was the system itself. The prosecutor even called the fine "quite kind." Kind? Taking 35 months of a person's side income? Taking five to seven months of their full-time salary? It's not a lot of money for some people, but it's everything for others.

And what's the message here? The message seems to be, "Know your place. Don't try to get ahead. Don't even think about improving your situation." It's a rigged game, they say. And I suppose it is. But when you look at it, it makes you wonder what the point of the game is in the first place. You work hard, you follow the rules, and then you get punished for working too hard. It just doesn't add up. It really doesn't.

Beyond the Surface: Unpacking Motives in Assessing Goodness

Beyond the Surface: Unpacking Motives in Assessing Goodness

The age-old question of "how to tell if someone is a good person" often leads us to examine their actions and outward demeanor. Yet, as deep philosophical and religious traditions teach us, this surface-level assessment can be profoundly misleading. Our recent discussions have delved into the critical role of motive in defining true goodness, contrasting it with the pitfalls of superficial judgment and the complexities of "誅心論" (judging the heart).

The Buddha, in his profound wisdom, cautioned against judging by appearances, stating: "若以色見我，以音聲求我，是人行邪道。" (If you see me by my form, or seek me by my voice, you walk the wrong path.) This timeless teaching underscores the idea that fixating on external attributes or even mere words can obscure the true essence. A captivating appearance or eloquent speech might hide an ulterior motive. Thus, to truly "see" a person, one must look beyond their outer shell.

This principle extends beyond mere aesthetics to actions themselves. Two individuals might perform the exact same charitable act. One may do so out of genuine compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering, while the other might be driven by a thirst for public recognition or personal gain. The outward action is identical, but the internal motivation reveals the divergent moral quality of their deeds. The former exemplifies true goodness; the latter, perhaps, a form of self-serving display.

This brings us to the nuanced concept of "誅心論." While often carrying the negative connotation of condemning someone based on assumed malicious thoughts without outward evidence, a deeper understanding of "judging the heart" becomes essential when assessing goodness. It's not about punitive condemnation of unexpressed thoughts, but rather about discerning the driving force behind a person's consistent behaviors. A truly "good person" cultivates wholesome intentions – compassion, generosity, wisdom – and acts from these pure wellsprings.

This distinction is sharply illustrated by the classic ethical dilemma concerning internal desires versus outward actions, famously highlighted by President Jimmy Carter's "lust in my heart" comment. Rooted in the Christian teaching from Matthew 5:28, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," this perspective posits that even an unacted internal desire can constitute a "sin." From a religious viewpoint, the state of one's heart, regardless of external manifestation, holds moral weight.

However, it is crucial to differentiate this from a legal perspective. The legal system, by its very nature, primarily concerns itself with actions that violate codified laws. A mere thought, no matter how intense or undesirable, is not a crime. The law cannot, and does not, punish unacted intentions.

From a Buddhist lens, while not framed as "sin" in the Abrahamic sense, an unwholesome internal state like strong lust is recognized as a "mental defilement" (煩惱). Such states cloud wisdom, perpetuate attachment, and contribute to suffering. The path of spiritual cultivation in Buddhism actively involves purifying the mind of these internal impurities, not just controlling outward behavior. It's a journey of self-awareness and transformation of the inner landscape.

In conclusion, understanding a person's goodness requires a profound shift from merely observing their outward form or actions to diligently examining their motives and the state of their heart. While legal frameworks appropriately focus on actions, deeper ethical and spiritual traditions consistently emphasize that true character is forged in the crucible of internal intentions. To truly know a good person, one must look, not just at what they do, but at why they do it.