{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiaupse5vap63vvedqkwfezhelbbtaqp4ncige56jpl7k2trpx2qtm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:gxs6vp6pkwm2revsdeyh6g5v/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfamf2ldf5u2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreidj3oifthf2tso4dbxqbxmf63srdpmmeaonve4vbhmacji2tjekpe"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1315096
  },
  "path": "/2026/02/19/philosophy-facts/",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-19T12:00:04.000Z",
  "site": "https://dailynous.com",
  "tags": [
    "philosophy",
    "expertise",
    "facts",
    "metaphilosophy",
    "methodology",
    "progress in philosophy",
    "Philosophy Facts",
    "Daily Nous"
  ],
  "textContent": "Philosophy is a “fact-based discipline” that makes progress, says Bryan Frances, and to prove it he offers up “200 straightforward facts directly about philosophical matters that virtually all philosophers know and non-philosophers don’t know.” They are listed in the appendix to a recent article of his in Philosophical Studies (unpaywalled penultimate version here). The actual article consists in explaining the kinds of facts they are, how to interpret them, and why they’re important. The facts are what Frances calls “basic facts,” by which he means that “they are elementary compared to the facts philosophers pursue, such as the truth-values of theses regarding physicalism, consequentialism, and so on.” They’re so elementary that the Basic facts in philosophy are almost entirely hidden from not only the typical moderately-educated adult (as argued in the next section) but even from philosophers. We know the Basic facts, at least dispositionally, but we almost never think about the vast majority of them. He also provides some guidance as to how to read the list of basic facts. Here’s one point: In saying that these are facts, I’m assuming the falsehood of radical views such as eliminative materialism, radical skepticism, compositional nihilism, semantic nihilism, truth nihilism, and so on, each of which conflicts with a non-trivial portion of the 200 claims. Such an assumption is nearly ubiquitous in epistemology and metaphilosophy discussions. If you like, we can throw the assumption of their falsehood into an antecedent for the 200 claims, now conditionalized. Also, for some of the fact sentences, “there are ways of interpreting them that won’t bring consensus amongst philosophers, and in the philosopher’s traditional search for flaws it can be tempting for a reader to choose the least charitable interpretations. I want to avoid those.” You’ll have to read the paper for the full set of interpretive directions, but the general instructions for reading the items on the list are as follows: when you read an item and think to yourself, “Well, that one can be true but only if you interpret a certain way, and under that way it’s pretty trivial”, that’s the very meaning I have in mind—the so-called trivial one (or ones). In order for an item to mistakenly be on the list, there can’t be..\n\nThe post Philosophy Facts first appeared on Daily Nous.",
  "title": "Philosophy Facts"
}