The Half-life of Facts.

@Setanta,

Asterix is too smart for me. This would be a more apt illustration:

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4828807125010389&w=205&h=178&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

A fact is a very subjective thing.

A fact is a very inter-subjective thing, or the raw source of the description is such. When nobody else (or reliable sane witnesses, anyway) perceives the Moon but me, then I will consider the possibility of it merely being my personal hallucination intruding upon the public, extrospective half of experience.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The question was: if logic is unreliable and facts are transients, what criteria can we possibly use to assess philosophies?

Before we get to that, what criteria are we using now (or if we were to say that logic is reliable and facts are permanent)?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

It would be ove-simplistic and naïve to assume that all logic is reliable--consider sophistry. However, that some ostensibly logical arguments are in fact sophistry is not evidence that no logic is reliable.

The problem with facts here is the same as the false problem of reality that Fresco always comes up with while riding his hobby horse to the effect that there is no reality, just cognitive consensus. That our descriptions of reality are flawed and inaccurate is not evidence that there is no objective reality. By the same token, that our descriptions of facts are flawed and inaccurate is not evidence that there are no facts.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Before we get to that, what criteria are we using now (or if we were to say that logic is reliable and facts are permanent)?

Well, obviously: 1) internal logical consistancy (absence of paradoxes) and 2) fitness with our perception or empiric data about the object of our discussion. These are criteria which we should try to find replacement for, if indeed we should dispose of them.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

1) internal logical consistancy (absence of paradoxes) and 2) fitness with our perception or empiric data about the object of our discussion.

Logic depends on definitions. Definitions depend on our ability to make them. Paradoxes come of bad definitions of premises.
The absence of paradoxes isn't a goal in itself. Such pursuits are exercises of vanity. If a theory riddled with paradoxes proved to make better predictions than a theory with no paradoxes, we would go for the one with the paradoxes.

And your 2) is just another way of saying "what works".

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

By the same token, that our descriptions of facts are flawed and inaccurate is not evidence that there are no facts.

Pardon, but not the same token. Facts are descriptions. A fact is a piece of information that describes reality in some way.

Quote:

That our descriptions of reality are flawed and inaccurate is not evidence that there is no objective reality.

Perhaps not. But it is evidence that all our knowledge and truths in no way point to any such objective reality.
In other words, everything we know is no more indicative of an objective or absolute reality than it is indicative of a god existing.

4 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Logic depends on definitions. Definitions depend on our ability to make them. Paradoxes come of bad definitions of premises.

If we can't agree on a few definitions, we can't have a functional dialogue. But you seem to agree that paradoxes are an issue. Encouraging...

I see logic is a sort of innate, often unconscious (yet today partly formalized in mathematics) language linking propositions or representations.

If I say a tautology like 'a cat is a cat', anyone who knows what a cat is will agree with me. Chances are that even those who don't know what a cat is -- some dudes deep in Papua New Guinea perhaps -- will agree that a cat is probably the same thing as a cat. It is possible to deny it, no doubt, even reason ably so eg all cats are different and not two cats are the same... So a cat is not ANY cat but 'a cat is a particular cat'... :/ but still, by and large a cat is a cat... To use your language, it 'works' and it works for all of us humans. I'm sure even cats would partly agree.

Now, one may argue that not all logic axioms or theorems are as universally self evident as tautologies. Necessary conditions, sufficient conditions and the like are perhaps colored by cultural mores but I would expect them to have a biological (instinctive) substrate. We don't have that many languages pretending to universality. I say let's give logic a chance, and a voice. It can only help us understand one another. We should be able to call a tautology when we see one for instance.

Logic is not indeed an absolute criterion, but together with empiric observations and other (relative) criteria, it helps in a multi-criteria assessment.

Quote:

And your 2) is just another way of saying "what works".

If "what works" means "what best fit the data", I'm all for it. But isn't "data" just another word for "fact"?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

In other words, everything we know is no more indicative of an objective or absolute reality than it is indicative of a god existing.

I wish God would wake me up every morning, instead of having to wind up a clock, in the unholy belief that it will continue to exist while I am asleep and unconscious, all through the night, by some sorcery or another only known to pre-postmodern people of lore, and wake me up in the morning.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

But isn't "data" just another word for "fact"?

No. Data is just information. Fact is current information. Like versions of software. Last year maybe it was v 2.0. This year it might be 3.0. It's the same software, doing pretty much the same thing it's done all along, but because of the changes in hardware etc v 2.0 won't work anymore.

And yes, "what works" means "what fits with observations and what makes the most accurate predictions and allows for the most control".

Hypothetically speaking, lets say a theory was proposed about some issue. The theory lets us successfully predict and more accurately describe this issue, but at the same time it is so counter intuitive to us that it seems full of paradoxes.

On the one hand we have proof that the theory is sound. On the other we have paradoxes. It is not my impression that the paradoxes would matter. The science would be embraced even if we didn't intuitively grasp it. It would be embraced because those who wouldn't embrace it would fall behind and become irrelevant.

So we are back to something I think fresco spoke of earlier. The consideration that our science might lead to concepts and models that defy description through comparison to "naive-realistic" or intuitive logic.

It is interesting to speculate about what such a transition might do to our facts and our take on "reality".

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I wish God would wake me up every morning, instead of having to wind up a clock, in the unholy belief that it will continue to exist while I am asleep and unconscious, all through the night, by some sorcery or another only known to pre-postmodern people of lore

Do you realize that this is the very same sentiment voiced by those who know god exists because anything else would be "some sorcery or another only known to pre-postmodern people of lore"? (Pre-postmodern=modern. Thats us mate, we the people of lore. Very Happy

)

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I could not disagree more. Facts are described by us for purposes of communication, and often inaccurately described. However, the fact is not the same as the description. Those facts would exist whether or not we were available to (inaccurately) describe them.

Actually, that we exist at all is evidence of an objective reality, and no appeal to any god is necessary. Epistemology may not be evidence of an objective reality, but that we exist, and have invented epistemology is.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Do you realize that this is the very same sentiment voiced by those who know god exists because anything else would be "some sorcery or another only known to pre-postmodern people of lore"?

I was putting up a parody of YOUR religion that reality does not exist, and therefore that if a clock keeps on existing during the night, it's because some strange magic is at work. So you think, my parody was pretty accurate and your religion is akin to any other religion, huh?...

But the deeper point was: the clock will wake me up WHETHER I AM AWARE IT OR NOT. Its existence does not depend on my awareness of it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

that we exist at all is evidence of an objective reality

No. The word "evidence" begs the question.
The concept of "existence" is inextricably linked to the concept of "reality". "Objectivity" (of alarm clocks, rocks etc) is a statement of agreement that some anthropocentrically defined "things" persist in their functionality when the perceptual awareness of some members of a community is "off-line".
No humans=no defined functionality=no agreed "things"=no objectivity=no concepts=no "existence"=no "reality".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Is that a fact?

I already knew about your bullshit, superstitious religion of philosophy--you didn't need to recite your personal creed to me, again, tediously

1 Reply

You know this clown would be lost without quote marks.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
By the same token, that our descriptions of facts are flawed and inaccurate is not evidence that there are no facts.

Pardon, but not the same token. Facts are descriptions. A fact is a piece of information that describes reality in some way.

Quote:
That our descriptions of reality are flawed and inaccurate is not evidence that there is no objective reality.

Perhaps not. But it is evidence that all our knowledge and truths in no way point to any such objective reality.
In other words, everything we know is no more indicative of an objective or absolute reality than it is indicative of a god existing.

Cyracuz...everything points to an objective REALITY. Fact is...there is no way for there to not be an objective REALITY.

Can you truly not see that if it were proven for an absolute fact that there is no objective REALITY...that would be the objective REALITY.

Showing there is no objective REALITY cannot be done, because it cannot be. If it were...that would be the objective REALITY.

Whatever IS....IS.

The fact that we have no evidence of the objective REALITY...or that (your supposed) "all our knowledge and truths so not point to any such objective reality"...only talks about our abilities to understand, comprehend, and have considerations about the REALITY.

The fact that there cannot possibly be no objective REALITY...does point to the fact that there is an objective REALITY.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Nor you yours. So when you do Set, I will on MY THREAD.

Playing with your "Dog" seems to be about the right level for your "philosophical" abilities.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

A fact is a piece of information that describes reality in some way.

But then, Cyracuz wrote:

But it is evidence that all our knowledge and truths in no way point to any such objective reality.
In other words, everything we know is no more indicative of an objective or absolute reality than it is indicative of a god existing.

Given that, in your second statement, you express doubt about the existence of an objective reality, one must ask: what "reality" were you talking about in your first statement?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Those facts would exist whether or not we were available to (inaccurately) describe them.

Actually, that is a common misconception.
A fact is a description. If there were no one around to describe an event, there could be no facts about that event. The event itself might still happen, but we cannot know that, only make guesses.

Quote:

Actually, that we exist at all is evidence of an objective reality

I disagree. It is evidence of reality, but we cannot assert anything beyond that.

How do you define reality? Many define it as the environment in which they find themselves. In that case I understand your objections, but the problem is that such a reality is as elusive as the concept of god.
To you it is self evident that there is an objective reality, and you see evidence of it in the mere fact that we exist.
That is the same justification offered up by those who think it is self evident that there is a god. To them the mere fact that we exist is proof that there is a god.

We cannot know that there is an objective reality. We can only know that we experience a reality that seems to persist with or without us.
We make fewer assumptions if we define reality as "the experience of the environment", rather than as the environment itself.

2 Replies

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know