The non-existence of institutional facts

That certain paper bills have monetary value, that Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia, and that Prince Philip is the husband of Queen Elizabeth II: such facts are commonly called 'institutional facts' (IFF). IFF are, by definition, facts that exist by virtue of collective recognition (where collective recognition can be direct or indirect). The standard view or tacit belief is that such facts really exist. In this paper we argue, however, that they really do not-they really are just well-established illusions. We confront realism about IFF with six criteria of existence, three established and three less so but highly intuitive. We argue that they all tell against the existence of IFF. An obvious objection to IFF non-realism is that since people's behaviour clearly reflects the existence of IFF, denying their existence leaves an explanatory gap. We reject this argument by introducing a variant of the so-called 'Thomas Theorem,' which says that when people collectively recognize a fact as existing, they largely behave accordingly, regardless of whether that fact really exists or not.

Automated summary

The paper discusses the existence of institutional facts (IFF), arguing that they are actually just well-established illusions and do not truly exist. The authors use six criteria to analyze the existence of IFF, finding that none of them support the existence of IFF. The paper also introduces a variant of the "Thomas Theorem" to refute the argument that denying the existence of IFF leaves an explanatory gap.