Is there such a thing as fact?

[Jens]

Actually, going back to the thread as a whole, I started wondering, when we say "facts," what do we mean? Because there are two issues. One is whether things actually happened in the past. The other is whether we know what happened. So going back to Ben Franklin, either he existed or he didn't. So there is a fact. But whether we understand is a completely different question. It's possible that he didn't exist but we believe he did.

Also, an interesting quote about history, by Santayana (not the more famous one): History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there.

[Boratssister]

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.

Science can not rule anything out! How can science prove that the whole universe is not a construct of my imagination? Scientists lie, manipulate data and generally can't be trusted any more than any other human being.
Science can only make assumptions based on interpretations of the past and hope that the past will repeat itself in any given scientific idea.......

Scientists equals the clergy of the past, only scientists see their worth to the world as a lot more important.
It is of my oppinion that scientists can be seen as apes prodding things with sticks. The problem arise's when the thing they are prodding is land mine.

[neilzero]

I suppose the wealthy class, and ruling class were always sneaky or worse, everywhere. The middle class and lower class were much more honest, ethical, empathetic, and truthful than recently. Of course, the middle class was few in numbers until recently. I only have 78 years of personal observation, so I may be dead wrong about what happened before about 1940. My interest in science dates back to about 1940, and I think the original post was about scientists and historians, but perhaps their honesty is no better than the average population, then or now. Neil

[Strange]

Science can not rule anything out!

Science can rule things out. It is particularly good at that. Phlogiston was ruled out when more data became available.

Scientists lie, manipulate data and generally can't be trusted any more than any other human being.

That may be true (I don't know) but it is irrelevant. Science doesn't depend on the behavior of individual scientists. It is the checking and repeating of results by others that makes science a powerful method for finding out information. Great advances have been made even when scientists didn't like the results of their research.

Science can only make assumptions based on interpretations of the past and hope that the past will repeat itself in any given scientific idea

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

Science makes hypotheses based on observed data and then checks that the hypothesis stands up to repeated tests.

Scientists equals the clergy of the past, only scientists see their worth to the world as a lot more important.

Perhaps you should give up all the trappings of our technological society, medical advances, etc if you think that they are only of value to scientists.

[Boratssister]

Science can rule things out. It is particularly good at that. Phlogiston was ruled out when more data became available.



That may be true (I don't know) but it is irrelevant. Science doesn't depend on the behavior of individual scientists. It is the checking and repeating of results by others that makes science a powerful method for finding out information. Great advances have been made even when scientists didn't like the results of their research.



You don't know much about how science works, do you?

Science makes hypotheses based on observed data and then checks that the hypothesis stands up to repeated tests.



Perhaps you should give up all the trappings of our technological society, medical advances, etc if you think that they are only of value to scientists.

american indians did quite well without modern science. It is my oppinion that cultures without modern science would continue existing a lot longer than modern science will ever allow.
American indians did not have to worry about nuclear waste, biological weapons , damms bursting, oil blowouts, chemicals leaks, mini balckholes, deforestation , being run over by a car, taxes and so on....... The list is endless. What some call progress some call extinction / destruction.

I will ask the question again- how can science prove that the whole universe is not a construct of my immagination? I have no idea what phlogiston is, however subsequent results in the future may actually turn absolutes on there heads.

There is no such thing as a fact. And that is a fact.!!!!!

[Jeff Root]

american indians did quite well without modern science.
It is my oppinion that cultures without modern science
would continue existing a lot longer than modern science
will ever allow.
American indians did not have to worry about nuclear waste,
biological weapons , damms bursting, oil blowouts, chemicals
leaks, mini balckholes, deforestation , being run over by a car,
taxes and so on....... The list is endless. What some call
progress some call extinction / destruction.

I guess that explains why people's lives are so much shorter
and nastier now than they were 500 years ago, before science
and technology made conditions so difficult.

I will ask the question again- how can science prove that the
whole universe is not a construct of my imagination?

Science cannot prove to *you* that the whole Universe is not
a construct of your imagination. However, it has no need to
prove it to anyone *else*, and science does not exist for the
purpose of proving things to *you*. It works great for other
people, but it doesn't work for you because you want things
from it that it isn't designed to provide.

I have no idea what phlogiston is,

Phlogiston was a scientific hypothesis about what happens
when things burn. It makes a very nice case study in how
science works, and the difference between being right and
being wrong. For one excellent and readable treatment of
the history of phlogiston, and the birth of modern chemistry,
see Isaac Asimov's essay "Slow Burn", which was included
as chapter 11 of his collection 'Adding a Dimension' (1964).

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Boratssister]

I guess that explains why people's lives are so much shorter
and nastier now than they were 500 years ago, before science
and technology made conditions so difficult.


Science cannot prove to *you* that the whole Universe is not
a construct of your imagination. However, it has no need to
prove it to anyone *else*, and science does not exist for the
purpose of proving things to *you*. It works great for other
people, but it doesn't work for you because you want things
from it that it isn't designed to provide.


Phlogiston was a scientific hypothesis about what happens
when things burn. It makes a very nice case study in how
science works, and the difference between being right and
being wrong. For one excellent and readable treatment of
the history of phlogiston, and the birth of modern chemistry,
see Isaac Asimov's essay "Slow Burn", which was included
as chapter 11 of his collection 'Adding a Dimension' (1964).

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

The american indians lived longer then than they do now. They have the shortest life expectancy of any race in north america and I would ask them which age was nastier. Then or now?

Science can not prove to you that the whole universe is not a construct of my immagination as I have encompassed you into my universe. You could kill me and if the universe still exists I have it covered, as all the energy in the universe is my immagination. I know everything. And you can not disprove that in any way.if a fact is an absolute truth then we must get into probabilities and science tells us that nothing is 100 or 0 percent probable.

P.s. I do not really beleive that the whole universe is the construct of my immagination or that I know everything as its quite clear I don't. I just feel particulary argumentative. Must be the hit of vitamin d from my first sunburn. Forgive me if I annoyed any scientists as hopefully you will save and not destroy the world. Sorry.

[DrRocket]

Science can not rule anything out! How can science prove that the whole universe is not a construct of my imagination? Scientists lie, manipulate data and generally can't be trusted any more than any other human being.
Science can only make assumptions based on interpretations of the past and hope that the past will repeat itself in any given scientific idea.......

Scientists equals the clergy of the past, only scientists see their worth to the world as a lot more important.
It is of my oppinion that scientists can be seen as apes prodding things with sticks. The problem arise's when the thing they are prodding is land mine.

Are you serious ?

1. Science rules out a host of things -- things that are physically impossible. It does that all the time. Watch CSI. Or read a physics book, whichever is easier for you.

2. Science evaluates experiments and observations (necessarily from the past) and from that information develops and validates models that predict the future. H ope is not a part of the process, although scientists of course hope to develop meaningful theories. They also hope to not be completely misunderstood, but sometimes, as apparently in your case, hopes are dashed.

2a. One thing that science rules out is use of experiments from the future to validate its models. So you see, there are things that are very easily ruled on a scientific basis.

3. Scientists have little in common with clergy of either the past or the present. The future is up for grabs, but that would likely involve a major change in the role of the clergy.

4. Your opinion regarding scientists, apes and sticks seems to be a rather uninformed opinion. Such opinions are ubiquitous, but not very useful.

5. Scientists and engineers know better than to prod a land mine with sticks. Land mines that the U.S. employs have a timed mechanism that disables them. Land mines that are destroyed using methods developed by scientists and engineers are destroyed remotely, using explosives, sometimes excess solid rocket propellant, and never with sticks. If you are thinking of prodding a land mine with a stick, I suggest that you reconsider. It is very hard to manage a stick of sufficient length to make this undertaking practical.

You might want to consider reading a no-kidding science book. Given your apparent background it would seem that almost any real science book relating to almost any discipline would be beneficial. There is a nice three-volume set with essays by many great scientists over a long period of time, The World of Physics. By reading those books you may come to realize that there are indeed facts. For instance, it is a fact that your contentions are false.

[Jens]

What some call progress some call extinction / destruction.

I think there are also a lot of people who take a more nuanced position, that I think is correct. That it is neither pure progress not pure destruction, that there are positive and negative elements to technological progress. In fact, I would question the intelligence (or wisdom) of anybody who saw anything purely in either of those black/white positions.

[Jens]

I will ask the question again- how can science prove that the whole universe is not a construct of my imagination?

Honestly? No, it cannot. Absolutely not. Nothing could.

There is no such thing as a fact. And that is a fact.!!!!!

You do realize that your statement is logically flawed, don't you? To say "there is no such thing as a fact" is stating that a single fact exists. So you would better word it, "There is only one fact, which is that there are no facts outside of that fact." If you mean by that that we can never know anything for certain, then I would readily agree. But in that case, how can we really know that we can't know anything for certain? We can't. So your statement seems to demonstrate to me at least that you haven't given this as much thought as you might have.

[adapa]

Science can not rule anything out!

To be honest, it can. If a theory/prediction/opinion/rumor contradicts what is happening in the real world, then it is wrong. For example, if the local weather forecaster says that it should be dry and sunny all day and you can see that there is a downpour happening outside, then that forecaster is wrong.

Scientists equals the clergy of the past, only scientists see their worth to the world as a lot more important.

Actually, scientists start with questions while clerics start with answers.

american indians did quite well without modern science. It is my oppinion that cultures without modern science would continue existing a lot longer than modern science will ever allow.

Just because they did better in pre-Columbian times does not invalidate modern science. The purpose of science is provide knowledge of the truth about nature. The yardstick for measuring its performance in this role is accuracy. Also, the suffering of the Native Americans was caused not by modern science, but by a hostile sociopolitical environment (expansionism, racism, etc.).

There is no such thing as a fact.

This statement gives the impression that you do not believe in the accuracy of Mathematics. To put it simply, 1+1=2 (the concept not necessarily the symbols) is a true statement regardless of where in the world or universe you live. And that is a fact.

[DrRocket]

Science can not prove to you that the whole universe is not a construct of my immagination as I have encompassed you into my universe. You could kill me and if the universe still exists I have it covered, as all the energy in the universe is my immagination. I know everything. And you can not disprove that in any way.if a fact is an absolute truth then we must get into probabilities and science tells us that nothing is 100 or 0 percent probable.

Wrong. Science can easily prove to me that the whole universe is not a construct of your imagination.

It cannot prove to YOU that the universe is not a construct of your imagination. But then, who would want to do that ?

[Jens]

Wrong. Science can easily prove to me that the whole universe is not a construct of your imagination.

I don't know; I don't believe it can. Perhaps I am a figment of your imagination or of the imagination of Boratsister, and have been programmed not to understand that. I don't believe there is any way to prove that to be false. But on the other hand, it's not a sensible question, because it's not falsifiable and not important in any case. If I am a figment of your imagination but the laws of physics work, then so be it.

[Jeff Root]

I was particularly surprised by this:

Scientists equals the clergy of the past, only scientists see their
worth to the world as a lot more important.

My expectation would be that most scientists see their worth to
the world as less important. Scientists try to discover how nature
works, while clergy try to save people's souls. Those are very
different tasks, and I think most people would agree that actually
saving people's souls would be more important than knowing how
nature works. I'm pretty sure most clergy would agree, at least.

What scientists and clergy do have in common is that they both
try to expose the Truth. They try to discover facts and explain
those facts to others. I think that is a noble undertaking.

It is of my opinion that scientists can be seen as apes prodding
things with sticks. The problem arise's when the thing they are
prodding is land mine.

I think that is reasonable. People who are not scientists can be
seen as apes that don't prod anything with sticks. When they
step on a land mine and it explodes, they have no idea what
happened, or why.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Strange]

What some call progress some call extinction / destruction.

There is no "scientific plan" to mistreat native americans or other groups. The things you dislike are more a result of wider cultural constructs like having a money-based economy, the drive to explore, human prejudices, religion, etc. They may use technology, some of which is made possible by scientific research but I don't think it is reasonable to blame science (and even less so, scientists) for these things. Groups of humans were oppressing other groups for thousands of years before modern science was developed. Often using nothing more than the sticks that you prefer as the limit of technology.

[tnjrp]

Science can easily prove to me that the whole universe is not a construct of your imagination

What Boratssister is refering to there, I would think, is solipsism, only it's worded in a wrong way. Tho obviously I would say that if I was just a figment of his imagination

The question of what "fact" means in and of itself is an interesting one tho when regarding real world phenomena outside of "definitional truisms" such as mathematics. Since all our observations of reality are to a degree subjective, the best we get is intersubjectivity, not objectivity. To achieve this in such a way that it can be assume the intersubjective world view is as close as possible to what can be assumed to be objectively true ("fact"), science counts repeatability and parsimony among its central criteria. Parsimony is, incidentally, a fairly good but not conclusive counter to solipsism too.

[Jeff Root]

Parsimony is always fairly good but never conclusive.

I've never seen that term "intersubjectivity" before.
Where would one encounter it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jens]

I've never seen that term "intersubjectivity" before.
Where would one encounter it?

Between subjects, I assume.

[tnjrp]

I understand the term is used mainly in "soft" sciences (such as sociology and psychology) but also more generally in philosophy of science. Sometimes one also sees the term "consensus reality" being applied.

If some other, more familiar term that can describe that which fits between fully subjective and fully objective exists, I'm OK with using that. In the spirit of achieving intersubjectivity

[Strange]

I realized this morning (bonus point to anyone who knows why) that, although the american indians suffered at the hands of invaders, they gave "us" tobacco which has caused death, disease and suffering for millions. As well as some pleasure. Things are, indeed, never black and white. Hmm, maybe that should be: things are rarely completely black and white.

[DrRocket]

I don't know; I don't believe it can. Perhaps I am a figment of your imagination or of the imagination of Boratsister, and have been programmed not to understand that. I don't believe there is any way to prove that to be false. But on the other hand, it's not a sensible question, because it's not falsifiable and not important in any case. If I am a figment of your imagination but the laws of physics work, then so be it.

Go baack and read it again. The whole thing this time.

Science can most certainly prove to me that the universe is not a construct of Boratssister's imagiination. I don't require a lot of proof for that, and science will do very nicely.

[DrRocket]

What Boratssister is refering to there, I would think, is solipsism, only it's worded in a wrong way. Tho obviously I would say that if I was just a figment of his imagination

Yep. Solipsism is basically silly philosophy, even among philosophers, and Boratssister managed to mangle even that. But one can only address what he said, not what one thinks he probably intended -- which would be a rather bizarre form of a strawman argument.

[Jens]

Go baack and read it again. The whole thing this time.

Science can most certainly prove to me that the universe is not a construct of Boratssister's imagiination. I don't require a lot of proof for that, and science will do very nicely.

The bold part seems to mean that we are using "prove" in a different way. I mean prove as in provide definite proof of, as in Pythagoras' theorem. And didn't mean "demonstrate to your satisfaction." I meant "show incontrovertibly." I don't believe it can do that.

[DrRocket]

The bold part seems to mean that we are using "prove" in a different way. I mean prove as in provide definite proof of, as in Pythagoras' theorem. And didn't mean "demonstrate to your satisfaction." I meant "show incontrovertibly." I don't believe it can do that.

To prove, in the mathematical sense, is possible only in mathematics. It is impossible for science to prove anything in that sense. That is a major difference between science and mathematics. Mathematics is based on airtight logical reasoning using as a basis a small set of axioms that are assumed to be true without proof. Science is concerned with objective reality, which it describes only as a set of successive approximations using models that are supported by, but not proved by, experimental evidence.

Since the discussion involves science and not mathematics, proof in the sense that you are using it is out of the question. Nothing in science is incontrovertible.

[Jens]

To prove, in the mathematical sense, is possible only in mathematics. It is impossible for science to prove anything in that sense. That is a major difference between science and mathematics. Mathematics is based on airtight logical reasoning using as a basis a small set of axioms that are assumed to be true without proof. Science is concerned with objective reality, which it describes only as a set of successive approximations using models that are supported by, but not proved by, experimental evidence.

So it turns out we agree on the point, but weren't agreeing on what we were arguing about. Ah well. In reality, the reason I believe I am not a figment of Boratsister's imagination is actually more of a philosophical issue, sort of like the cosmological principle. Kind of like, why, out of the billions of people on earth, would we be the figment of that one individual's imagination? There is no reason to believe it might be true. I suppose like Occam's razor or something.

[DrRocket]

So it turns out we agree on the point, but weren't agreeing on what we were arguing about. Ah well. In reality, the reason I believe I am not a figment of Boratsister's imagination is actually more of a philosophical issue, sort of like the cosmological principle. Kind of like, why, out of the billions of people on earth, would we be the figment of that one individual's imagination? There is no reason to believe it might be true. I suppose like Occam's razor or something.

There is a more or less wacko branch of philosophy called soli****m that is concerned with all perception being a figment of one's own imagination. This is just barely rational, but even the most extreme philosophers today giggle up their sleeves at it. But to wonder if oneself is a figment of someone else's imagination is a bit beyond the pale.

Descartes "I think therefore I am" has always struck me as being obvious but shallow, despite its notoriety. But to substitute "You think therefore I might not be" is too much. I don't need Occam's razor to reject the latter.

Science, as with mathematics, cannot proceed without assuming some things as axioms -- truths that are self-evident, that do not require proof. One's own existence is one such fact. You cannot even construct a dictionary if you assume that no words at all are understood at the outset.

This has gotten silly.

[Buttercup]

I think TRUE facts are the minority ... mostly because we're always learning something new. A current model becomes obsolete, etc.

But there are facts, yes; gravity is one. As I was sharply reminded last year (tripped and fell on a concrete sidewalk...).

[Cougar]

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.

Exactly. The way I see it, observations are the only facts. From those, logical inferences may be drawn, usually based on specific assumptions. Apparently some assumptions are more "solid" than others.

[DrRocket]

Exactly. The way I see it, observations are the only facts. From those, logical inferences may be drawn, usually based on specific assumptions. Apparently some assumptions are more "solid" than others.

I can agree with this, so long as one also recognizes that we "know" things based on more than observational facts. From observational facts one constructs models that are intended to explain things that may not have yet been oberved. There are far too many phenomena for us to actually measure or observe them all directly, so we rely on models that are intended to explain a wide variety, in fact an infinite variety, of possible situations. Those models must be consistent with the observed facts, in order to be valid. So they are really models with a factual basis and not flights of fantasy.

But I think that most of us base our perceptions of the world on models, either formal or informal, and not solely on a data base of individual observations. We need both.

There are people who rely more on abstract models and people who rely more on specific observations. Extreme examples of either tend to be extremely limited in their capabilities and nearly impossible to reach using ordinary means of communication. The extreme side of abstraction tends toward fantasy and delusion while the extreme side of pure empiricism tends toward an inability to learn, an inability to handle novel situations and exceptionsl closed-mindedness. There is a very large middle range this is productive, sometimes one fashion and sometimes in another.

[Cougar]

I can agree with this, so long as one also recognizes that we "know" things based on more than observational facts.

Well, I did add "logical inferences" drawn from these observations. But as you say, the idea of a model is highly instructive in this context.... [I've also appreciated other posts of yours that I've read lately. Thanks.]

But I think that most of us base our perceptions of the world on models, either formal or informal....

Our perceptions of the world (or Universe), yes. Of course, these models don't only display configurations, they should also formulate all interactions of all the members. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the "real-life" world isn't so straightforward.