Facts and Truth

What's the difference between fact and truth?

This is a question I've been rolling around for quite some time (and will undoubtedly continue to do so long after this is posted...).  The conclusion I think, so far, that I've arrived at is that facts are what happens, truth is what we think happens because of facts.  Fact: top government officials have been unable to thus far (at the time of writing) been unable to reach a fiscal agreement to avoid across-the-board budget cuts.  Plain and simple.  Truth: top government officials are more concerned with preening and posturing for their constituents than keeping the U.S. economy moving forward.

Could one argue for or against the latter statement?  Sure.  Heck, I'll do it now: it's not about posturing but rather a concern for the sustainability of various options provided from both sides, from spending to taxes, that have been contributing to an increasing ideological rift. Suddenly the truth goes from feet-dragging do-nothings to ideological combatants, fighting for what each sees as "right".

Now, I see this issue as incredibly problematic when it comes to people spouting truths as facts.  When personal interpretation is imposed on others as "the actual way things are".  Think, for instance, about legislation that "infringes on belief": the blanket contraception requirement churches and other religious institutions' insurance plans - one person's truth conflicted with another's.  Or restrictions on same-sex marriage.  Same deal.

Of course, with such reasoning, enacting 90% of legislation would be at an impasse.  So it's a good thing most of our politicians try to see things from as narrow a perspective as possible.

I think the second issue comes to head with our Confirmation Bias - we don't look so much for information as we search for confirmation.  Think of the news you watch, the papers and magazines you read, the pundits you prefer...I would guess, on a hunch, that many of these sources align more toward your already-held beliefs, rather than toward the contrary (e.g. conservatives are more likely to watch Fox News, liberals would tend to tune into MSNBC...).  So I would affirm that there is less to be said about the actual happenings (facts) of a situation than there is about our perception of those happenings (truth).  In a 1979 University of Minnesota study, subjects read about a week in the life of the fictional Jane.  Jane, in the narrative, often showcased both extroverted and introverted tendencies in various situations throughout the week.  A few days later, the researchers split the subjects into two groups, asking one group if Jane would be well-suited for a career as a librarian, and asking the other group if she would be well-suited for a career as a real-estate agent.  In the group first asked if she would make a good librarian, the subjects recalled instances of her exhibiting introverted behavior, and the real-estate group - you guessed it - recalled her as an extrovert.  After presenting their case for their respective careers, the groups were then asked if she would be well-suited for the other (i.e. the librarian group was asked if Jane would make a good real-estate agent and vice versa).  Each group stuck to their original assessment - Jane would not, in fact, make a good librarian as argued by the real-estate group (McRaney, 2011, You are Not so Smart).

Another great example (and one I think I'll reference more often!) is this picture:

http://www.mpocares.com/news-events/mpo-visual-illusion/young-woman-old-woman-illusion/

Fact: it's a picture.

Truth: It's an old woman.

Truth: It's a young woman.

So what truths do you take as fact?

Oh, and I am more than aware that listening to someone endlessly assault you with their "truth" is both infuriating and physically tiresome...  Please balance empathetic listening with self-restraint, and, when need be, the good ol' "just walk away" method!