Attention logicians. Facts are constructions!

Interesting, thanks. Maybe it's another way to note how the idea of Will and responsibility are embedded in English.

There was a thread called Defense of Free Will... it mulled over the way that ancient impressions of divine will continue to shape our outlook and expressions.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Have our new friends immersed in logical analysis on recent threads considered the etymology of the word "fact" from the Latin facere (similar to French faire) to make or to do? Does this not undermine concepts of "objectivity" and suggest that our picture of "the world" is "brought forth" by observer activity ?

How would the etymology of a word undermine objectivity?

Do tell.

0 Replies

Fact, facet, farce. (sun wink)

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Have our new friends immersed in logical analysis on recent threads considered the etymology of the word "fact" from the Latin facere (similar to French faire) to make or to do? Does this not undermine concepts of "objectivity" and suggest that our picture of "the world" is "brought forth" by observer activity ?

Why would the etymology of a word have anything to do with its current meaning? The etymology of the word, "lunatic" is, "a person whose behavior is influenced by the Moon", but if I call Kim Jong Il a lunatic, I am not saying that his behavior is influence by the Moon. The argument of the form: Word "W" used to mean so-and-so, therefore word "W" currently means "so-and-so" is known as the etymological fallacy.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0LEVIT_5RZMxXUARBEPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTExM2o0amIyBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA3JlNAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--?qid=20090122055035AAt5yzM

1 Reply

Facts are still constructs no matter the etymology. By this I mean one cannot perceive a fact without somehow interpreting that fact. Lets say there is a thing that is. To describe that thing that is one must use a series of sense descriptions, arbitrary measurement methods, cultural and language specific vocabulary. Then one must place it in context with its surroundings and purported meanings, other facts etc... One also only sees the fact according to preconceived thought processes, ideologies, axiologies, etc... So I would assume that a fact can exist independently, but it cannot be perceived independently and is therefore a construct.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Why would the etymology of a word have anything to do with its current meaning? The etymology of the word, "lunatic" is, "a person whose behavior is influenced by the Moon", but if I call Kim Jong Il a lunatic, I am not saying that his behavior is influence by the Moon. The argument of the form: Word "W" used to mean so-and-so, therefore word "W" currently means "so-and-so" is known as the etymological fallacy.

But that's not even the issue. The issue is that he believes that the meaning of a word has bearing on there being an objective world. In other words, he believes that the meaning of the word "fact" dictates if there are facts. But no matter what the meaning of the word "fact" is or was, that has nothing to do with there being an objective world or not.

Suppose the word "elephant", somehow, through convention, changed meaning. That would have absolutely no bearing on elephants existing or not.

Goshisdead wrote:

Facts are still constructs

Well, facts are not constructs insofar as they are not mind-dependent; they are mind-independent. Why would people think that facts are psychological constructs?

3 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Facts are still constructs no matter the etymology. By this I mean one cannot perceive a fact without somehow interpreting that fact. Lets say there is a thing that is. To describe that thing that is one must use a series of sense descriptions, arbitrary measurement methods, cultural and language specific vocabulary. Then one must place it in context with its surroundings and purported meanings, other facts etc... One also only sees the fact according to preconceived thought processes, ideologies, axiologies, etc... So I would assume that a fact can exist independently, but it cannot be perceived independently and is therefore a construct.

I think you must mean that our constructs of what the facts are, are constructs, which is, of course true. Not that facts themselves are constructs. That doesn't even make sense.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

...But that's not even the issue. The issue is that he believes that the meaning of a word has bearing on there being an objective world....

You've put your finger on the glaring flaw with the thesis expressed in the opening post.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

...But that's not even the issue. The issue is that he believes that the meaning of a word has bearing on there being an objective world....

You've put your finger on the glaring flaw with the thesis expressed in the opening post.

It is more than a glaring flaw in this opening post. It seems common to come across people these days who sincerely believe facts are mind-dependent. It's some sort of subjectivist/relativist sickness that's going about.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Why would the etymology of a word have anything to do with its current meaning? The etymology of the word, "lunatic" is, "a person whose behavior is influenced by the Moon", but if I call Kim Jong Il a lunatic, I am not saying that his behavior is influence by the Moon. The argument of the form: Word "W" used to mean so-and-so, therefore word "W" currently means "so-and-so" is known as the etymological fallacy.

But that's not even the issue. The issue is that he believes that the meaning of a word has bearing on there being an objective world. In other words, he believes that the meaning of the word "fact" dictates if there are facts. But no matter what the meaning of the word "fact" is or was, that has nothing to do with there being an objective world or not.

Suppose the word "elephant", somehow, through convention, changed meaning. That would have absolutely no bearing on elephants existing or not.

Goshisdead wrote:
Facts are still constructs

Well, facts are not constructs insofar as they are not mind-dependent; they are mind-independent. Why would people think that facts are psychological constructs?

Whether or not that is the issue I don't know. But he did argue that because the etymology of the term "fact" is that it comes from a term that implies subjectivity of some sort, that the term "fact" implies subjectivity of some sort. But that argument commits the etymological fallacy. Now, if he has also said what you ascribe to him, then, of course, I agree with you. Of course, the argument that if word, "w" exists then what word, "w" putatively refers to, exists, is obviously fallacious too. And, in that case, he has committed two fallacies. Not uncommon.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

Well, I believe that is the issue since the title is named "Facts are constructions", which is common for "Truth is relative" or "Truth is mind-dependent". He also insinuates in the OP that the meaning of the word could undermine objectivity. To quote him, "Does this not undermine concepts of "objectivity" and suggest that our picture of "the world" is "brought forth" by observer activity ?".

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Well, I believe that is the issue since the title is named "Facts are constructions", which is common for "Truth is relative" or "Truth is mind-dependent". He also insinuates in the OP that the meaning of the word could undermine objectivity. To quote him, "Does this not undermine concepts of "objectivity" and suggest that our picture of "the world" is "brought forth" by observer activity ?".

Well, maybe you are right. I have a very hard time discovering what he (or people like him) mean when they say that kind of thing or, indeed whether they mean anything clear at all. (My own understanding of the notion of something or other being a "construction" is, I must admit, very hazy).

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zeth I get what he meant, I was expressing something else. I expressed that there are independent facts or rather that there are things that are independent of our minds. I also expressed that as soon as they are perceived by our minds they become interpreted construct that may or may not be actually representative of the independent thing.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

I know very well what I meant and we have been round and round with this sort of thing. You say that there are independent things, I say there are independent things. You say the independent things are the facts. I say the facts are descriptions of the independent things.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

Zeth I get what he meant, I was expressing something else. I expressed that there are independent facts or rather that there are things that are independent of our minds. I also expressed that as soon as they are perceived by our minds they become interpreted construct that may or may not be actually representative of the independent thing.

Just how do you know that is true unless you can know how they are before they are interpreted. But according to you, that is exactly what you cannot know . In fact, you are in a loop.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

I may be in a loop because it is a loop. Can you prove there is something independent of your mind without making a loop? I have yet to see you do it.

1 Reply

Thank you all for your contributions so far. Perhaps I should have included Heisenberg's quotation ...

Quote:

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”

...in order to bring home the point.

Consider also if you will, the frog in a tank, who will die from starvation when surrounded by dead flies, because its perceptual system is "hard wired" only to detect live ones. Does not our perceptual system (and physiology in general) similarly delimit what constitutes "data" despite our ingenuity in constructing a few transducers ?

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

It is more than a glaring flaw in this opening post. It seems common to come across people these days who sincerely believe facts are mind-dependent. It's some sort of subjectivist/relativist sickness that's going about.

I suggest you try to transcend the layman's dichotomy of subjective-objective. Try looking from the level of humanity engaged in a social activity from which concepts of "self" are acquired. Dennett for example suggests that the "self" is evoked through the acquisition of language, and Heidegger argued that "the world" is only segmented into objects separate from a self(Dasein) when the flow of interaction is interrupted (celebrated "hammer" example).

0 Replies

I will contribute my very modest understanding of a Kantian argument.

Let's consider an object - any object. The point about it is, that we see if from a certain distance, and in relationship with other objects. You cannot see it as it is 'in itself', as in doing that, you would be seeing it from all perspectives simultaneously, which is of course impossible. If you did, you would be seeing it from near and from far, and from each possible angle and from inside and outside, all of which is absurd. It must exist in relation to a viewpoint.

This does not mean that it ceases to exist when it is not observed. That is its imagined non-existence. It does not mean the object exists in your mind - not in the sense that 'the mind' is something that can be made into an object of perception. We could say that everything exists in conscious experience, or consciousness, or awareness, but these cannot themselves be objects of perception, as they are prior to any kind of intentional mental activity. We cannot get 'outside' of consciousness, or mind, in that sense. It is that by which all is known.

So we are considering the knowledge of objects, which is all we can ever consider. But this is does not mean this knowledge is subjective because the consciousness within which this occurs is not ours alone.

None of this undermines science or empiricism. Everything works exactly as it always ought to. But we no longer have the illusion that objectivity is a kind of absolute.

1 Reply

Attention logicians. Facts are constructions!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know