10
   

Attention logicians. Facts are constructions!

 
 
fresco
 
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:56 pm
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 ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 7,903 • Replies: 134

 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 06:21 pm
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
 
Zetherin
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 06:23 pm
@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
 
sometime sun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 06:23 pm
Fact, facet, farce. (sun wink)
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:32 pm
@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
GoshisDead
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:03 pm
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.
Zetherin
 
  3  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:35 pm
@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?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:39 pm
@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.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:40 pm
@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.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:44 pm
@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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:47 pm
@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.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:50 pm
@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 ?".
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 09:56 pm
@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
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:17 pm
@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.
GoshisDead
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:25 pm
@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.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:27 pm
@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.
GoshisDead
 
  4  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 10:32 pm
@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.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 11:45 pm
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
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 12:57 am
@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
 
jeeprs
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2010 05:55 am
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.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Attention logicians. Facts are constructions!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 03:04:31