0
   

Define 'Fact"

 
 
Reply Sat 24 May, 2008 09:46 pm
From a scientific point of view. What is a fact?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 716 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2008 05:50 am
Quote:
Something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.



Quote:
Fact and the scientific method

Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29]

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2008 11:57 pm
I would say it was never a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time and that facts and truth are inextricably related, our present beliefs and misconceptions notwithstanding.

In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2008 02:35 pm
You ain't gettin' no mileage out of it here, though, Boss . . .
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2008 05:35 pm
Can't blame me fer tryin'. Can ya?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2008 05:55 pm
neologist wrote:
In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.

The science thread seems to stop rather quickly because there is a finite answer within the structure of science. Very sciencelike Smile

The other threads seem to continue to varying degrees because there is no finite answer due to an unbounded structure (no rules).

The strength of science seems to be its ability to provide finite answers within the structured assumptions of a particular worldview (naturalism). But it limits creativity.

The other conditions are unbounded, so they lead to a much broader, and probably endless, series of possibilities. The unbounded condition seems to provide more fertile ground for creativity and expansion. Yet it provides no functional answers until one is chosen and set into a rule structure (thus limiting it).
0 Replies
 
Vengoropatubus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 02:25 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.

The science thread seems to stop rather quickly because there is a finite answer within the structure of science. Very sciencelike Smile

The other threads seem to continue to varying degrees because there is no finite answer due to an unbounded structure (no rules).

The strength of science seems to be its ability to provide finite answers within the structured assumptions of a particular worldview (naturalism). But it limits creativity.

The other conditions are unbounded, so they lead to a much broader, and probably endless, series of possibilities. The unbounded condition seems to provide more fertile ground for creativity and expansion. Yet it provides no functional answers until one is chosen and set into a rule structure (thus limiting it).


Is creativity limited by the selection of one worldview, or is it just channeled?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2008 04:00 pm
Vengoropatubus wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
In case any one has yet to notice, I posted this same question in Science, Philosophy and Religion Forums

The differing points of view are interesting, but not yet enlightening, IMO.

The science thread seems to stop rather quickly because there is a finite answer within the structure of science. Very sciencelike Smile

The other threads seem to continue to varying degrees because there is no finite answer due to an unbounded structure (no rules).

The strength of science seems to be its ability to provide finite answers within the structured assumptions of a particular worldview (naturalism). But it limits creativity.

The other conditions are unbounded, so they lead to a much broader, and probably endless, series of possibilities. The unbounded condition seems to provide more fertile ground for creativity and expansion. Yet it provides no functional answers until one is chosen and set into a rule structure (thus limiting it).


Is creativity limited by the selection of one worldview, or is it just channeled?

Maybe both.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2008 03:31 pm
It is bound to be limited logically. The worldview might not know this and possibly can't know it or at least can't know the nature of the limitations.

Translators of fiction have the problem. Certain types of creativity are bounded by the language they use. It's also a difficulty for married couples and even casual metings between people.

I don't think one can "select" a world view. One might try but it is only ever superficial.

Certain languages seem to cause certain types of creativity.

There has been a lot of research into idiom and speech patterns in England and all over.

Vico kicked it off a long while ago.

Quote:


He gives precedence to art and all the best writers are, and were, familiar with his stuff. Joyce had a Vico Road in Ulysses.

The research is often linked to character as with the dour Scot.

Whether it derives from the landscape itself is disputed. If so you lot will be dancing around totem poles in a few years, terrestially speaking, or terrestrially if you come from Vancouver, or anywhere as posh, in a loin cloth with the squaws eyeballing you up whenever you cock your outside leg up, your right one if your going clockwise and vice versa in the counter case and giggling amongst themselves. Like the Hokey-Cokey only with tom-toms.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define 'Fact"
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2021 at 11:42:30