Is there such a thing as fact?

[Larry Jacks]

As for if there is any such thing as a FACT, I like the courtroom idea of 'reasonable doubt', it admits we can not know, but we can be sure enough to work with, and if new information comes up, that goes into the equation as well. In that way we can constintly refine our ideas, and never have to admit we are wrong.

Regarding history, there are things we know and are facts. For example, shortly after midnight on June 6, 1944, thousands of British and American paratroopers parachuted into occuppied France to start the invasion (or, as the French have been known to call it, "The Embarkation."). That's a fact. To dispute it is absurd.

There are a lot of things in history that seem implausable but are none the less true. For example, about an hour after Bell submitted his patent application for the telephone, a man named Gray submitted his application. Both men had been working on the telephone independently. The same is true for Frank Whittle and Fritz von Ohan (sp) and the jet engine. Whittle began his work earlier but it was a German jet engine that first flew. This sort of thing happens quite often. Likewise, someone may invent something but is unable to capitalize on it while a later inventor becomes famous for the same idea.

[Disinfo Agent]

Regarding history, there are things we know and are facts. For example, shortly after midnight on June 6, 1944, thousands of British and American paratroopers parachuted into occuppied France to start the invasion (or, as the French have been known to call it, "The Embarkation."). That's a fact. To dispute it is absurd.

It's not absurd, but it would be unreasonable, given the large amount of evidence that supports it -- and I know of no evidence that counters it, and can think of no way the evidence might be defective or misinterpreted.

But often historians wish to address more complex issues, such as (a discussion I've encountered many times on the Internet): would the Allies have won World War II had the US not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the bombing save a significant amount of lives overall? How many lives?... This is the sort of question which I don't think will ever have a definite answer. There's isn't even much evidence we can use to discuss it. All that historians can do is argue for/against each possible reply. (This is not an invitation for discussing it here, please. It's also far too political for this forum.)

[Ken G]

It's not absurd, but it would be unreasonable, given the large amount of evidence that supports it -- and I know of no evidence that counters it, and can think of no way the evidence might be defective or misinterpreted.

That's right. I think the key point is that "facts" are really a lot "mushier" than we'd like to believe. More often than not, it isn't even the "fact" that really counts, it is our relationship with it. For example, the parachuting into France is not important to us for the "fact" that it commenced "shortly after midnight on June 6 1944", nor is it important that the exact time is not specified in that detail, and perhaps not even known, even though one is no less a "fact" than the other. If it really started at 12:55 am, someone might argue that shouldn't count as "shortly after", but what difference would that make. Or, perhaps we'd uncover evidence that the first company actually dropped at 11:55pm on the preceding day of June 5, but the vast majority followed later so it gets reported as being on June 6. Or, what about advanced agents dropped in prior to the main deployment, shouldn't they count too (they would probably consider themselves to be the start of the invasion, would they not)? It is always our relationship to the "facts" that defines what we mean by a fact, and that's why these hair-splitting details I am mentioning are not important to "history" unless we have some reason to make them important. In the meantime, a "fact" continues to be subordinated to our requirements for it. That's why I wouldn't say there's "no such thing" as a historical fact, but rather, we need a more sophisticated understanding of what we mean by a "historical fact", which in some situations will be slipperier than in others.

[Gillianren]

I will just note that history isn't always written by the victors, as an examination of the state of Civil War scholarship would indicate. It's just usually written by the victors. The farther we've progressed with access to printing presses, the more chance both sides have had to write their own version of events. Heck, remember that the US lost the War of 1812, but we still write an awful lot about it.

[Ilya]

But often historians wish to address more complex issues, such as (a discussion I've encountered many times on the Internet): would the Allies have won World War II had the US not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the bombing save a significant amount of lives overall? How many lives?...

I would not call any of these things "facts". I suppose the answer to your original question -- yes, there ARE such things as facts, but only those which can be objectively measured (that is, without human participation or interpretation), or at least COULD in theory be objectively measured back when they happened. Thus the exact number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a fact... even though it almost certainly will never be known. The number of lives saved by these bombings, i.e. what could have been, is not and never was a fact.

[Disinfo Agent]

But I think the example still shows that many interesting and important questions in history cannot be fully answered just by collecting uncontroversial facts. They can only be discussed...

[Joe Durnavich]

It is always our relationship to the "facts" that defines what we mean by a fact, and that's why these hair-splitting details I am mentioning are not important to "history".

Exactly. The notion of fact functions in the context of us living our lives in the world and trying to do that well as possible. The context of what you are trying to do at the moment will determine what is relevant and what is important.

To wonder if “there are facts” or if “facts really exist” or if “there are only observations and those hide facts” is to get lost in one of the many metaphors of everyday language. We say “there is such a thing as fact” not in the same sense as “there is such a thing as a shoe,” but to remind ourselves that we can do better by paying attention, taking more care, working harder, adopting successful practices, experimenting, that what you do will matter, will have consequences, etc.

[Larry Jacks]

But often historians wish to address more complex issues, such as (a discussion I've encountered many times on the Internet): would the Allies have won World War II had the US not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the bombing save a significant amount of lives overall? How many lives?...

It sounds like someone is confusing facts with opinion. That happens a lot, especially in modern newsrooms and at universities.

That's right. I think the key point is that "facts" are really a lot "mushier" than we'd like to believe. More often than not, it isn't even the "fact" that really counts, it is our relationship with it. For example, the parachuting into France is not important to us for the "fact" that it commenced "shortly after midnight on June 6 1944", nor is it important that the exact time is not specified in that detail, and perhaps not even known, even though one is no less a "fact" than the other. If it really started at 12:55 am, someone might argue that shouldn't count as "shortly after", but what difference would that make. Or, perhaps we'd uncover evidence that the first company actually dropped at 11:55pm on the preceding day of June 5, but the vast majority followed later so it gets reported as being on June 6. Or, what about advanced agents dropped in prior to the main deployment, shouldn't they count too (they would probably consider themselves to be the start of the invasion, would they not)? It is always our relationship to the "facts" that defines what we mean by a fact, and that's why these hair-splitting details I am mentioning are not important to "history" unless we have some reason to make them important. In the meantime, a "fact" continues to be subordinated to our requirements for it. That's why I wouldn't say there's "no such thing" as a historical fact, but rather, we need a more sophisticated understanding of what we mean by a "historical fact", which in some situations will be slipperier than in others.

If this level of quibbling is what passes for modern history scholarship, no wonder it isn't taken seriously as a subject matter. It's rather like the arguments held centuries ago about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Both the argument and those making it quickly become irrelevant. Pity. I personally believe that to understand what the future might hold, you have to first understand the present. And to understand the present, you need to understand the past. Perhaps history is too important to be left to the historians.

[Disinfo Agent]

But often historians wish to address more complex issues, such as (a discussion I've encountered many times on the Internet): would the Allies have won World War II had the US not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the bombing save a significant amount of lives overall? How many lives?...

It sounds like someone is confusing facts with opinion. That happens a lot, especially in modern newsrooms and at universities.

How am I supposed to reply to this personal jab, Larry? By reporting your post?

Be rational, not childish. After all, you're the one who believes in objectivity, right?

[TrAI]

It's not absurd, but it would be unreasonable, given the large amount of evidence that supports it -- and I know of no evidence that counters it, and can think of no way the evidence might be defective or misinterpreted.

But often historians wish to address more complex issues, such as (a discussion I've encountered many times on the Internet): would the Allies have won World War II had the US not bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the bombing save a significant amount of lives overall? How many lives?... This is the sort of question which I don't think will ever have a definite answer. There's isn't even much evidence we can use to discuss it. All that historians can do is argue for/against each possible reply. (This is not an invitation for discussing it here, please. It's also far too political for this forum.)

There is no truth in war, really. The German and Japaneese is remembered as the bad guys, and it is quite true that they perpetrated many terrible acts. But the Allies is far from pure, sure they may claim that it was in self defence, but still... Countless innocent civillians killed, terrible weapons causing untold suffering and who knows what after effects.

I guess it turned out for the best in the end, we have had a relatively calm time in quite a large part of the world after the war. But still, I get the image of how some ancient tribe might have sacrificed their enemies to the gods with the hope for peace... Ah well, there is little that can be done about the attrocities done that long ago, and perhaps WW2 did drive the point in a little, seeing as the following wars has been on a small scale relative to it...

[Disinfo Agent]

WW2 was one of the least morally ambiguous wars in history, in my opinion, and still there are elements of it which we can legitimately question. I'm not as sure as you, by the way, that the Cold War was an exactly positive outcome of WW2. But maybe it was the necessary price many of us had to pay to get rid of the threat of fascism.

[TrAI]

WW2 was one of the least morally ambiguous wars in history, in my opinion, and still there are elements of it which we can legitimately question. I'm not as sure as you, by the way, that the Cold War was an exactly positive outcome of WW2. But maybe it was the necessary price many of us had to pay to get rid of the threat of fascism.

Well, I am not questioning the allies' right to go to war, it is the things they did that is so terrible.

I guess the best defence I could think about was that the military view of the people just wasn't moraly prepaired for the weapons science had put into their hands at that time. But it is a rather feeble excuse, really.

As for the cold war, well, it was much better than some of the alternatives. Without WW2 we might never have seen nuclear weapons used for real before a significantly increased number of the weapons were around... It may not be much, but I am sure that seeing the devastation caused by such weapons did cause a few people to think twice...

The utter destruction of entire cities must have been a bit of a wakeup call(Not only by nuclear weapons, incendiaries and high explosives was quite terrible too, I would think). Sure, during the war people probably didn't think much about it, just to much to process in the fog. But afterwards...

[Larry Jacks]

How am I supposed to reply to this personal jab, Larry? By reporting your post?

Perhaps you should go back and actually read (comphrehension would also be nice). I was referring to the historians in your remark:

But often historians wish to address more complex issues

But if it applies to you, so be it.

[Disinfo Agent]

I was referring to the historians in your remark:

But often historians wish to address more complex issues

What were you trying to say about historians, then?

[Joe Durnavich]

This is why I'm a scientist. I hate human interpretation of events,...

But in my view, a "fact" is...

Your view? Should we take it, then, as your interpretation of what a fact is?

(just kidding)

In my science classes, there is usually a "right " or "wrong" answer without too much wiggle room for interpretation.

I think notions like right and wrong, or truth, are mostly artifacts of the classroom environment where the student is trained to write an answer, which the teacher then marks as right or wrong, or true or false. I think that practice strengthens the metaphor of correpsondence, where we picture our thoughts as corresponding or not to facts that are said to exist in the world. It's a great metaphor and it works very, very well in practice. It causes confusion only in the hands of philosophy. Notice how this discussion will not be able to resolve whether facts exist or not.

[Romanus]

I can't believe I just now found this post--and it's a good one!

My op:
"I'm studying for a masters degree in history, and recently had a rather troubling seminar with a highly talented historian/literature professor who complained at the lack of interdisciplinarity in humanities research (this is a science-related question, I promise). He claimed that historians, in their relentless pursuit of "truth" have favoured the study of "documents" over "texts"; leaving literature and its historical contexts to be studied by language majors."

As someone with a bachelor's in history, in my own studies I never really noticed a favoritism over texts versus documents; in fact, most of my classes mixed the two freely. Utopia is both a text and a document, as are The Iliad, Juvenal's Satires, and the works of Shakespeare. This was especially apparent in my American Studies classes, which were easily 50/50 split between documents and literature.

"Anyway, what he ultimately said was that many things, texts, artefacts, even pictures, could be read historically. "

I agree 100%.

It was at this point that I began to wonder, where does history end and science begin?

Ah, the philosophy of history: always a thorny problem. The only explanation that works for me is my perspective on history as a discipline consisting of two different, but related things: what happened (e.g., a nail scratching a chalkboard), and what was perceived (an annoying noise). One can value / study one or the other more--the former getting closer to science, the latter to art. History itself, I think is neither; to use a faddish term, I think it comes close to Derrida's idea of being undecidable. I know that's too "po-mo" for most people, but it works for me without detracting from my enjoyment of history.

How do I stand up to a creationist who claims that he is merely reading the text one way, and I another?

There's no need to; merely inform them that if reading the text differently is all that separates you and they, then they have no more empirical support for their POV than they (might) claim your discipline lacks same. The thing is, they're not talking about something interpretive like public and private attitudes in Frankish Gaul, they're pointing to a cliff face with an ammonite in it and calling it 6,000 years old.

[Joe Durnavich]

The only explanation that works for me is my perspective on history as a discipline consisting of two different, but related things: what happened (e.g., a nail scratching a chalkboard), and what was perceived (an annoying noise).

That is the standard dichotomy: a fact or something "out there" and a proposition, claim, perception or something "in here" with people arguing that the latter prevents fully knowing the former. In history, we may feel that the evidence or the lack of it isolates us from the event.

Another way of looking it is just people doing stuff: one guy scratching the chalkboard and others cringing and hollering at him to stop. We aren't really isolated from history, except metaphorically. In a sense, we are still part of the events that have occurred.

[Ken G]

Heck, remember that the US lost the War of 1812, but we still write an awful lot about it.

I think it actually gets counted as a win, because of the Battle of New Orleans. Never mind the peace agreement had already been signed, and the war itself accomplished nothing...

[ravens_cry]

Let's just say Canada won so we can all be happy

[Ken G]

Quebec or Ontario?

[hhEb09'1]

Heck, remember that the US lost the War of 1812, but we still write an awful lot about it.

Yeah, everything I read about it said we won. I must've been reading the loser texts that were somehow saved in the fire (along with the 19-0 jerseys )

[Phantomimic]

I think the problem is we think of things as either 100% true or 100% false. What we need to understand is that many things are not false but rather "incomplete".

For example, Newton's outlook of the universe is wrong at speeds approaching the speed of light or in the vicinity of intense gravitational fields yet we use it for routine calculations to send our spacecrafts into space. Einstein's view of the universe is truer than Newton's but it is also more complicated, so for practical purposes we use Newton's. This does not mean Newton's ideas are false; they are just "incomplete".

It all depends on the level of detail that you wish to attain. A flat earth outlook served us well when we did not have to deal with very long trips and fast travel and communications, but today such outlook would be unmanageable. Similarly we are 100% certain of historical facts that do not require a great level of detail, for example, "there was a World War II", but more nuanced questions about historical facts (more detail) may begin to yield more uncertainty. The more the questions venture away from physical events and into the realm of interpretation and feelings the less certain we will be of our facts (the more incomplete they will be).

History can be considered a type of science, paleontology is essentially a historical science. Much in the same way as a scientist looks for fossils, a historian looks for notes, letters, books, maps etc.

[Cookie]

Here is a random fact for you all that are reading this post.
You read my post.

Facts exist.

[Jeff Root]

Cookie,

Whatever do you mean by "exist"?

Do you *really* mean to assert that facts "exist", or was that just
a spur-of-the-moment comment made with no forethought? Or can
you provide an interpretation of the meaning of the term "exist" that
will make your assertion perfectly sensible?

I favor the notion that facts are independent of what anyone believes.
Which I suspect is what you meant when you said that "facts exist".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Boratssister]

Here is a random fact for you all that are reading this post.
You read my post.

Facts exist.

can you prove that ? Can we be sure you posted the post?

[DrRocket]

I'm studying for a masters degree in history, and recently had a rather troubling seminar with a highly talented historian/literature professor who complained at the lack of interdisciplinarity in humanities research (this is a science-related question, I promise). He claimed that historians, in their relentless pursuit of "truth" have favoured the study of "documents" over "texts"; leaving literature and its historical contexts to be studied by language majors. The valuable insights into the hopes, aspirations and ideals of a period that literature can give is not seen as the domain of objective, rational inquiry. This is, he points out, rather incongruous. After all, simply studying the documents of the Cold War will give you far less of an idea of the public mood and uncertainties of the time than watching 50s scifi movies. Watching "The Taming of the Shrew" will give you a better idea of women's behaviour in the 16th century than reading "courtesy books" which discuss an ideal, rather than an actuality.

Anyway, what he ultimately said was that many things, texts, artefacts, even pictures, could be read historically. He even went so far as to mention that archaeological and anthropological remains could be read historically. It was at this point that I began to wonder, where does history end and science begin? Of course, I am aware of the scientific method; hypothesis followed by experiment followed by repeatable result etc. However, at what point does this ideal of objectivity break down? I've often read that science and other forms of "rational" inquiry are based on fact. But it seems to me that what is really being spoken of is observations. Scientists make observations and then infer the facts from them. But how solid are these facts?

My degree has already made it very clear that there is no such thing as historical truth; all that occurs is the reading and interpritation of a text. But where does that leave me as far as science is concerned? After all, the genetic code and the geological record are, in their own way, texts. How do I stand up to a creationist who claims that he is merely reading the text one way, and I another?

Science is concerned with natural phenomena. There seems to be an order in the way that nature operates, and science exploits that order to describe nature in quantitative terms using predictive models. "Facts" in the case of science are controlled and precise observations that support or refute detailed models.

Historical "facts" are a different animal. There are different sides to current issues, and what one side regards as fact, another sees as a flight of pure fantasy. I completely agree with the notion that history is more than a collection of dates and events, and ideally includes an understanding of the attitudes of people and the context in which contemporary records are to be viewed and interpreted.

While there may be such a thing as historical truth, it is probably limited to a few well-established facts -- dates, place, etc. Motivations, reasons, etc. are unlikely to be sufficiently well known or documented to rise to the level of incontrovertible facts. History is not science. It is far too messy and requires far more individual interpretation. That makes it, in a real sense, more difficult.

How do stand up to a creationist ? What is the point ? You cannot have a rational discussion with an irrational person.

There is a point at which one must yield to science, be it in history or with respect to issues such as creationism. While science is limited to some very well-defined issues, that is also a strength in that science can offer definitive conclusions regarding certain aspects of natural behavior. A historical interpretation of an even that is physically impossible is wrong. Science cannot recreate history, but it can assuredly rule out some interpretations. It can certainly rule out any interpretation in which the Earth is only 6000 years olds.

[neilzero]

I f you want facts that are without blemish, and true beyond unreasonable doubt, then there are few, perhaps no facts in any aspect of human activity. If the Ben Franklin example is close enough to fact then at least half of what we accept as facts, meets the definition. There is a reasonable concern that standards for mainstream are falling rather than improving due to the widely held view that it is ok to lie for a "good cause" Neil

[Jeff Root]

There is a reasonable concern that standards for mainstream are
falling rather than improving due to the widely held view that it is
ok to lie for a "good cause"

Is that view any more widely held now than at any particular time
in the past? I imagine that it varies as much from one culture to
another as it varies over time. It certainly varies from individual
to individual, and for any individual it varies with the circumstance.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[mugaliens]

Yeah, everything I read about it said we won. I must've been reading the loser texts that were somehow saved in the fire (along with the 19-0 jerseys )

Lol, hh...

"In the U.S., battles such as New Orleans and the earlier successful defense of Baltimore (which inspired the lyrics of the U.S. national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner) produced a sense of euphoria over a "second war of independence" against Britain. It ushered in an "Era of Good Feelings," in which the partisan animosity that had once verged on treason practically vanished. Canada also emerged from the war with a heightened sense of national feeling and solidarity. Britain, which had regarded the war as a sideshow to the Napoleonic Wars raging in Europe, was less affected by the fighting; its government and people subsequently welcomed an era of peaceful relations and trade with the U.S."

Doesn't sound like a loss. The British wanted many things, they got zero land and exceedily few concessions in the Treaty of Ghent. Indeed, the British returned 10 million acres of land held in the Northwest Territories, while we returned areas of Ontario back to British control.

Indeed, the treaty didn't settle who won or lost! Rather, it simply ended the fighting and made reparations on both sides, most of which were honored, while some were not, although some of those which were not honored, such as impressment, were no longer an issue. If anything, Canada won, as the War of 1812 began the process that lead to the Canadian Confederation in 1867.

But it was counted as a win for the U.S., by the U.S., for it helped coalesce a rag-tag band of small states into a swelling national pride punctuated by what is now our National Anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner. This began an era of expansionism which transformed our nation in the succeeding century.

So who won? We all won.

Thus concludes our history lesson for today.

[Jens]

There is a reasonable concern that standards for mainstream are falling rather than improving due to the widely held view that it is ok to lie for a "good cause" Neil

Not to be cynical, but adding to what Jeff said, I doubt there is a culture on earth where that is not widely held. I seriously doubt such a culture exists.