Telling fact from fiction

[RoadRunner79]

I've already given an example.

Ok... I looked back and seen "third person omnipresent narration". 

This would include many news reports and biographies.   Possibly even some scientific reports. 

I would agree, that if the person is giving thoughts and such inside different characters minds, that it is likely fictional.   However, I would differentiate, in simply giving information, that they where obviously not present for.   I also wouldn't agree, that speaking in the third person, is definitive of fiction.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that it would, but in those cases that it does...as I already mentioned...it would show you that you were reading a fictional narrative -about- factual events.  You'd have to check the contents though, and we're trying to avoid that.

Of course, we could needle in deeper, still without any knowledge of the content of the narrative, and examine narrative device.

Speaking in third person -omnipresent/omniscient- is definitively, and demonstrably a mark of fiction...regardless of whether or not you agree, or how many ways you'd like to pre-emptively split the baby. That's what makes it useful as a general principle.

[RoadRunner79]

I doubt that it would, but in those cases that it does...as I already mentioned...it would show you that you were reading a fictional narrative -about- factual events.  You'd have to check the contents though, and we're trying to avoid that.  

Of course, we could needle in deeper, still without any knowledge of the content of the narrative, and examine narrative device.

Speaking in third person -omnipresent/omniscient- is definitively, and demonstrably a mark of fiction...regardless of whether or not you agree, or how many ways you'd like to pre-emptively split the baby.   That's what makes it useful as a general principle.

As I said, I largely agree.  But I could also see how a scientific report, may fit that criteria, with multiple people taking observations, and being in the third person.   It may be a little different now with instruments to record, but you may have the same results in the literature.  Most of the time, when I have read published papers, names aren't included.  Similarly news reports, may just account for the facts, and give information from multiple points of view, without giving a first person account for each.

[The Grand Nudger]

Third person limited and third person omni aren't the same.  It's not about "largely agreeing"...you're disagreeing by reference to another type of pov. Third person limited would, however, present a greater possibility that some portion of the narrative was fictional - relative to first person.  In a vacuum, simply because there would be more individual povs to source and account for. Obviously, without checking the contents of the account you couldn't check a fact, but it's probably useful to acknowledge the relative difficulty in gathering that many facts from many povs, and then accurately relating them.

[RoadRunner79]

Third person limited and third person omni aren't the same.  It's not about "largely agreeing"...you're disagreeing by reference to another type of pov. Third person limited would, however, present a greater possibility that some portion of the narrative was fictional - relative to first person.  In a vacuum, simply because there would be more individual povs to source and account for. Obviously, without checking the contents of the account you couldn't check a fact, but it's probably useful to acknowledge the relative difficulty in gathering that many facts from many povs, and then accurately relating them.

It's been a while since I took an English class, what is the distinction in this context

[The Grand Nudger]

Third person limited is when the story is told from a "floating" pov that might recount conversations, the setting., etc.  Third person omni knows what they are thinking...and also what the inanimate object in the next room stuffed in a box under the bed is doing. It knows everything about everything. It's probably the purest and most pronounced form of a decidedly fictional narrative pov. When the author uses it, no matter -what- they're talking about...they're making at least -some- of it up.

[bennyboy]

I think my last post made my argument in a maximally precise way, but I'm fine with spelling it out.

You say kids are taught the difference between fact and fiction, but you will not allow them to apply critical standards to the Bible, will you?  Will you really spell out the inconsistencies in the Bible and let them make of it what they will?

If you are like most Christians, you will not teach the kid to view the Bible critically.  If the kid is dumb enough to ask a smart question, like "If God is good, how come little babies are born with Zika?" the spin will begin, I think.  If the kid says, "How do you know God is real?" will you teach him how to distinguish fact from fiction then?  Will you teach him scientific principles, and ask him to apply them to the Bible as honestly as possible?

Now, I don't mean this to attack you.  But it's hard for me to see how you will teach a kid to think critically while exposing him to a system of thought that is based on faith.

It is interesting; how often here, and in similar conversations, I find that atheists tell me what I do, what my motivations are, what I believe, why... and so on.   And when corrected, it is ignored (much like when evidence is given, and then it is claimed that there is no evidence). 

However, to the topic at hand.... do you have a general principle that we can apply critical thinking to, for determining fact from fiction, other than the circular ones described thus far?

You are not reading carefully enough.  The term "if" is conditional: "IF you are like most Christians."  You can simply answer "I'm not like them.  I would never teach my kids that the Bible represents Truth even though I can't demonstrate its truth, because that would NOT be teaching them how to distinguish between fact and fiction." I'm not saying what you do-- I'm saying what I THINK you would do, based on my knowledge that you are Christian, and my experience with other Christians.

As for a general principle of determining fact from fiction: that's easy: believe those things first which are in accordance with what you already know about life, and second which you can verify, as fact.  Those things which are not in accordance with what you know, and which you cannot verify as fact, do not take as fact.

So let's say I tell a kid that there's a Mr. Smith living down the street and he owns a parrot.  The kid knows from his own experience about people, streets and parrots, and will be willing to take my assertion as fact even though he hasn't confirmed it.  Now, let's say I tell the kid Mr. Smith can walk on water, can turn a couple loaves into a meal for thousands, and can turn water into wine.  The kid, will say, "Ummmmm. . . I don't think that can happen, cuz I've never seen anything like that and neither has anybody I know." The kid would likely say, "I'll tell you what. If you can show me anybody doing any of those things, then maybe I'll believe Mr. Smith is real, and you're not just telling me stories to make me eat my broccoli."

Smart kid.  Critical thinking in action.

[RoadRunner79]

It is interesting; how often here, and in similar conversations, I find that atheists tell me what I do, what my motivations are, what I believe, why... and so on.   And when corrected, it is ignored (much like when evidence is given, and then it is claimed that there is no evidence). 

However, to the topic at hand.... do you have a general principle that we can apply critical thinking to, for determining fact from fiction, other than the circular ones described thus far?

You are not reading carefully enough.  The term "if" is conditional: "IF you are like most Christians."  You can simply answer "I'm not like them.  I would never teach my kids that the Bible represents Truth even though I can't demonstrate its truth, because that would NOT be teaching them how to distinguish between fact and fiction." I'm not saying what you do-- I'm saying what I THINK you would do, based on my knowledge that you are Christian, and my experience with other Christians.

As for a general principle of determining fact from fiction: that's easy: believe those things first which are in accordance with what you already know about life, and second which you can verify, as fact.  Those things which are not in accordance with what you know, and which you cannot verify as fact, do not take as fact.

So let's say I tell a kid that there's a Mr. Smith living down the street and he owns a parrot.  The kid knows from his own experience about people, streets and parrots, and will be willing to take my assertion as fact even though he hasn't confirmed it.  Now, let's say I tell the kid Mr. Smith can walk on water, can turn a couple loaves into a meal for thousands, and can turn water into wine.  The kid, will say, "Ummmmm. . . I don't think that can happen, cuz I've never seen anything like that and neither has anybody I know." The kid would likely say, "I'll tell you what. If you can show me anybody doing any of those things, then maybe I'll believe Mr. Smith is real, and you're not just telling me stories to make me eat my broccoli."

Smart kid.  And in my experience, most kids older than about three are at least this smart, unless their parents tell them to stop thinking and start believing.

So, basically anything which I don't assume as true, and they cannot or will not demonstrate to me personally is likely fiction? Would you say this is accurate of what you are proclaiming?

[RoadRunner79]

Third person limited is when the story is told from a "floating" pov that might recount conversations, the setting., etc.  Third person omni knows what they are thinking...and also what the inanimate object in the next room stuffed in a box under the bed is doing.  It knows everything about everything.  It's probably the purest and most pronounced form of a decidedly fictional narrative pov.  When the author uses it, no matter -what- they're talking about...they're making at least -some- of it up.

Ok... I was doing some research.   What I found, is that the point of view of the narrator is not discussed as much concerning non-fiction, as it is fiction.   I did find some that referenced third person omniscient non-fiction and called in the Journalist or professional  point of view.  Come to think about it, I've seen nature documentaries given in this point of view. 

Other than the fact, that a human author cannot give first hand accounts from two distinct places at once, and therefore cannot both be first hand accounts (told in a third person narration) what is the reasoning behind your claim (that third person omnipresent is decidedly fictional?  I am also curious to know what you mean by "no matter -what- they're talking about...they're making at least -some- of it up"?  Why only some;  why not all or none?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok... I was doing some research.   What I found, is that the point of view of the narrator is not discussed as much concerning non-fiction, as it is fiction.   I did find some that referenced third person omniscient non-fiction and called in the Journalist or professional  point of view.  Come to think about it, I've seen nature documentaries given in this point of view. 

Yeah, nature documentaries that imagine what the alligator is thinking, and then voice it in american english.  Fiction.  Journalists who guess, as best they can, the thoughts of others.  Fiction.  I don't know if anyone ever told you this...but we often use fiction to explore or convey fact.

Other than the fact, that a human author cannot give first hand accounts from two distinct places at once, and therefore cannot both be first hand accounts (told in a third person narration) what is the reasoning behind your claim (that third person omnipresent is decidedly fictional?  I am also curious to know what you mean by "no matter -what- they're talking about...they're making at least -some- of it up"?  Why only some;  why not all or none?

Other than it being impossible, what's the reason for my claim....really?

As to some, because I'm not a moron who thinks that there's a single word or method that can determine the entirety of truth. The author may write -about- a conversation...imagining motivations or inner dialog. They may be cleverly anthro-ing a gator eating a deer. The narrative is still fiction, even when the conversation happened, and the deer was eaten. The narrative being fiction does not change that the convo happened, or the deer was eaten. This is just a way opf getting a read that doesn;t require you to check any of the facts of the narrative, which was what was requested.

Might not be all...can't be none - because, impossible. Leaves us with "at least some", eh?