The author missed a golden opportunity to point out that most facts aren't facts either.
Example fact: the word "literally" means consistent with reality, not exaggerated or fanciful. Is that what "literally" means -- yes or no? Let's resolve this by looking up a dictionary definition:
Definition 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
Definition 2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
Take you pick -- "literally" either means according to reality, or according to the speaker's fancy.
Another example fact (something many people believe): "After a long losing streak while gambling, statistics says my luck should improve." True or false? It's false -- the above is called the "Gamber's Fallacy".
Facts are facts. What you have pointed out here is that words can have different meanings (very true) and that a fallacy is not a fact (also true).
I will agree that it is the case that certain facts as we know them today may cease to be facts in the future. For example, it was once believe to be a fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
And yet that second definition came about due to incorrect usage of the term. Or exaggerated usage of the term that others started using the term only as an exaggeration.
So is "literally" as a virtual thing incorrect? Or new?
> And yet that second definition came about due to incorrect usage of the term.
But there are no "incorrect" usages of words. Dictionaries are supposed to record how people use words, without judgment or rancor. Encyclopedias strive for correctness, but dictionaries are only meant to find out, and report, how people choose to use words.
In the old days of lexicography, scholars would find ten new uses of an existing word, or of a new word, and that was the criterion, the threshold for acceptance -- that new word, or that redefinition, was duly recorded. I think that's still the standard by which words are discovered or redefined.
The tl;dr: Encylopedias prescribe, dictionaries describe.
> So is "literally" as a virtual thing incorrect?
Wrong question. I think the only fair question is -- does this usage cause confusion? Well, yes, but since people use the word that way, what are you going to do? People are in charge of language, not scholars in an ivory tower.
Example fact: the word "literally" means consistent with reality, not exaggerated or fanciful. Is that what "literally" means -- yes or no? Let's resolve this by looking up a dictionary definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
Definition 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>
Definition 2: in effect : virtually <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>
Take you pick -- "literally" either means according to reality, or according to the speaker's fancy.
Another example fact (something many people believe): "After a long losing streak while gambling, statistics says my luck should improve." True or false? It's false -- the above is called the "Gamber's Fallacy".
More here: http://arachnoid.com/wrong/ ("Everything you know is Wrong")