On the Identity of Facts: A Reply to Lowe

According to a traditional conception, a fact is individuated by its constituents and the way these are structured. Lowe (1998) argues against this, claiming that there is no principled way to ascertain what the constituents of facts are and, therefore, there is no way to coherently individuate them. In this paper, I examine and reject Lowe's argument. It will be shown that there are different conceptions of facts, a fine‐grained and a coarse‐grained conception, and that both can coherently individuate facts. In my diagnosis, Lowe's argument arises from a conflation of both conceptions.