You are not answering the question. It's as if I would ask you how to build something, but instead of showing me how to do it, you show me some finished products and then you define it very broadly. Again, the question is: How to identify a fact?
For example, you claimed Real Madrid had won the European Cup 13 times. How is this a fact? Real Madrid, "in fact", won 19 "European cups" or 6 times "the European Cup". Now, what is a fact, 6, 13 or 19? Well, it obviously depends on the context of the question but if we allow for context, we cannot avoid interpretation. Why? Because language does not map perfectly onto either physical reality, society or even our inner life as human beings (without going into the much deeper problems of what reality, society or the human psyche even are).
Some people might argue we could avoid interpretation by making more specific statements, like "Real Madrid won the UEFA football Championsleague introduced in 1992 and running until today 7 times". But then we might ask, for example, did they really "win"? And we might answer by making our statement even more specific: "Real Madrid is listed by the official organs of the organisation called UEFA as the winner of the UEFA football Championsleague introduced in 1992 and running until today 7 times". But then we could ask even more specific questions and we never stop. That is, however, not an infinite regress in itself because human language is limited and at some point we have to concede that we cannot perfectly identify what "is" and hence, interpretation is absolutely necessary to stay functional as a human being.
That said, I don't think we would have to give up the term "fact", but it would have to be defined in a meaningful and useful manner and we would need to furnish some kind of method of how to arrive at them. So, I am genuinely interested in how you would identify facts beyond a two liner that can only scratch the surface of this complex of problems.
I agre 100% with you... Interpretations are fictions.... of course yes. I don´t believe in any interpretation...Interpretation only wants to explain the present... and justifying it. In fact... nobody in this forum and in this planet know how the Second World War will be interpreted in the year 2145. And for sure... very different that in 1965..So interpretations are not interested to me.. only facts...
It seems that you read only my first sentence, which suits your aims, and then ignored the rest. A fiction in the sense I used the term is not disconnected with reality, but has a more loose connection to it than 'facts' (whatever the definition of the term you are using), as I tried to explain in my post. Explanations of the past, 'interpretations' as you will, are connected to reality through historical evidence, the same you can use to state 'facts', and at the same time are bound by the evidence, and cannot extrapolate it unless there is a justification (one example being the existence of a strong case for a piece of evidence to be false). So even if in general terms our interpretations of the Second World War change over time, the more specific aspects of these interpretations will remain the same, for they depend on well-established facts and in the way these facts turn many other interpretations blatantly false.
It turns out that for many sets of events in history there is more than one available line of interpretation. But through argumentation and the use of new evidence one can narrow down which interpretations are more viable and better explain the extant evidence. This does not mean that interpretations are entirely false, as you seem to believe, and considering that historical explanation relies on the same mechanism of explanation that we ourselves use for our daily functioning (as I explained in my previous post), you'll need a much stronger case than just stating that all interpretations are false. Tell me why I cannot possibly know why the apple fell.
It is not correct to call fact something you have not personally experienced ,
anything else is "reported facts " with varying distance from those events
you are saying WW2 finished in 1945 , some Japanese soldiers in the jungle or Galician partisans would think different
there has been a lot of discussion about the start of WW2 , plenty of records ,plenty of opinions .
ultimately ,there is a consensus ....that's accepted History
History is the shifting and collating records and artifacts like assembling a puzzle with missing pieces
some of which have been added and don't belong at all put by people either crazy or pushing an agenda
History is the recording of past events, of people, and other facts that has a profound effect to mankind's legacy and existence.
It is written, recorded by Historians and handed down..., and of course, it is expected to be true, real and accurate though errors and mistakes in details or circumstances can occur in recording it. Deliberate distorion or invention can also happen by original writer/s or by later writers that may have a purpose or agenda in 'revising' the original source/s.
''..Hannibal had war elephants, crossed the alps and lost most of them...,and yet in Zama there are still some of them used in that battle...?''
I think that looking at older source/s and of later, newer ones is a better way in determining and analyzing events as it truly happened.
What is the meaning of the sentence about Hannibal's use of war elephants?
Hannibal crosses the Alps in 218 BC. Battle of Zama 202 BC 16 years later.
At the battle of Cape Ecnomus in 256 BC the victorious Roman fleet lost 24 ships sunk and 10,000 men killed. The next year in 255 BC the Roman fleet was struck by a storm and at least 284 ships sank and at least 96,000 men were lost. In 253 BC the Romans lost at least 150 ships in a storm and tens of thousands of men. At the Battle of Drepna in 249 BC the Romans lost 93 ships and 8,000 to 20,000 men. And yet at the Battle of the Aegates Islands in 241 the victorious Roman Fleet still had 200 ships.
At the Little Bighorn 25 June 1876 the hostile Sioux and Cheyenne killed 268 US soldiers and wounded 55, 6 fatally. And yet there were 1,200 US soldiers at the Battle of Slim Buttes September 9-10, 1876 and about 1,000 US soldiers at the Dull knife fight November 25, 1876