RE: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our Name
>[pj] A fact is an aspect of the percieved world, that if articulated in
language
> gives rise to a proposition that is an incontrovertible belief. (01)
I agree - my use of *anything* was too broad. The issue is the difference
between a "fact" and the statement of a proposition as representing a
"fact". Reality doesn't change, so in that sense, facts don't change.
What I can perceive I classify as facts, but that is one step removed in
some ultimate sense.
I operational terms, it doesn't matter since we all have to designate some
of what we know as facts whether the result of direct observation or not. (02)
The problem comes when we try to distinguish between "source X claims that Y
is a fact" and "Y is a fact", in the absence of direct experience to
validate the statement is not possible. As a result, much of what I accept
as fact is because I "have it on good authority". (03)
I insist that reality is real and objective, so that facts remain facts. The
issue is one of how we come to accept as fact reports which we cannot verify
directly. (04)
Thanks, (05)
Garold (Gary) L. Johnson (06)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:01 AM
To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: Re: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In
Our Name (07)
Sorry Gary,
I penned that email while going through a 4 day backlog of mail on a thread
by
date basis. I didn't realise you had pre-empted me on certain points in
http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0209/msg00263.html (08)
>[pj] Not all beliefs about the perceived world are incontrovertible.
> The incontrovertibility of the belief entails that the aspect of the
> perceived world that is its subject matter should be classified as a fact.
> By definition incontrovertibility survives communication." (09)
I would stand by this in spite of what you've written below. e.g. (010)
>[GJ] Since we all operate in a state of insufficient information,
identifying
> anything as truly incontrovertible is not really possible. The best we can
> do is to get to a place where our level of confidence in the proposition
is
> such that we are willing to treat is as "true" instead of fully qualifying
> the proposition at all times. Any "fact" of merit is subject to being
shown
> to be less than totally correct as a result of further evidence. (011)
I simply disagree with that stance :-)
It is, imho, an intrinsic property of a fact that it does not change.
>[pj] A fact is an aspect of the percieved world, that if articulated in
language
> gives rise to a proposition that is an incontrovertible belief. (012)
E.g It is a fact that this is a reply to your email. (013)
--
Peter (014)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 11:24 PM
Subject: RE: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In
Our
Name (015)
> Since we all operate in a state of insufficient information, identifying
> anything as truly incontrovertible is not really possible. The best we can
> do is to get to a place where our level of confidence in the proposition
is
> such that we are willing to treat is as "true" instead of fully qualifying
> the proposition at all times. Any "fact" of merit is subject to being
shown
> to be less than totally correct as a result of further evidence.
>
> Since the amount of information that we can get about the world by our own
> observation is limited, we are also constrained, sooner or later, to have
to
> choose what source or sources of information we are going to accept as
being
> most nearly correct in any given case. It isn't pretty, but it is true.
>
> This is why it is so important to be able to backtrack to sources if there
> is a strong need to evaluate statements effectively. When some study is
> reported, there are all sorts of issues that we need to examine before we
> can say that the results are "facts" in this broader sense:
> * Who did the study?
> * What are their credentials in this area?
> * Are there any conflicts of interest or hidden agendas here?
> * Was the reporting correct, complete, and in context?
> * . . .
>
> The tools that we should develop should support asking these sorts of
> questions.
> Absolute certainty is not possible, but something approximating full
> disclosure should be.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:39 PM
> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> Subject: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In
Our
> Name
>
> Garold (Gary) L. Johnson wrote:
> > ... The better an understanding that we can get of the *facts* of
> > the problem and their relationships the better chance we have of
evolving
> > solutions that will work in the sense that they will eliminate rather
than
> > alleviate the problem.
>
> Just thought I'd point out that 'fact' is one of those terms whose meaning
> gets
> debated a lot in philosophy.
> Here's a preliminary definition I cooked up a while back whilst thinking
of
> these same issues.
>
> "What are facts?
> A fact is an aspect of the percieved world, that if articulated in
language
> gives rise to a proposition that is an incontrovertible belief.
> Not all beliefs about the perceived world are incontrovertible.
> The incontrovertibility of the belief entails that the aspect of the
> perceived world that is its subject matter should be classified as a fact.
> By definition incontrovertibility survives communication."
>
> Note that this makes the class of facts rather narrow - they are
effectively
> indisputable.
> This suggests to me that if the data is obvious, then perhaps it is
actually
> differences in the way folks stitch it together that is the problem. Most
> academic activity is built upon that idea.
>
> Perhaps it is the links and inferences, and comparisons of such, that are
> more
> critical to the enterprise of problem solving after one has nailed the
facts
> (a
> tough job in
> itself).
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com>
> To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:38 PM
> Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our Name
>
>
> > > such differences of opinion/judgment among thoughtful men
> > > . . . are mostly a matter of insufficient availability of shared,
> > verifiable facts.
> >
> > This is certainly true, but it isn't all of the problem. As Joseph M.
> Juran
> > says: "It isn't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know
for
> > sure that isn't so." (multiple attributions). Not totally true, of
course,
> > what you don't know *can* hurt you also.
> >
> > The terms "everybody knows", "common sense", "obvious", "self-evident",
> > "intuitive" and similar all denote knowledge that is claimed to be
shared
> by
> > all an seldom is. One difficulty with most discussions is that they
start
> in
> > the middle with all participants believing that everybody else shares
what
> > are to them are obvious bits of knowledge. This turns out to be true
> almost
> > never. For this reason, going back to precise definitions becomes very
> > important. Learning to use language as unambiguously as possible and to
> pay
> > attention to such details as precise *shared* definitions is essential
to
> > progress in serious discussion.
> >
> > Gary Richmond's post on "Poor in Assets and Income" makes this point
quite
> > well. Given an inadequate definition of a single word can result in a
> > failure of even the best intentioned to resolve the difficulty. In
social
> > problems, a major difficulty is getting a formulation of the problem
that
> > actually takes into account all the relevant factors and tries to
> determine
> > which of those factors are causes and which are effects - a point that
was
> > made in the posts on the commons site. Failure to state the problem in
> > adequate terms dooms us to trying to solve the wrong problem.
> >
> > Poverty is a classic case:
> > "Poverty means that the poor don't have enough money" results in
programs
> to
> > give them money, which have failed, because that is far from all that is
> > needed.
> > The asset definition may be a better one, but in the light of some of
the
> > commons information, sometimes "access to assets" is an important
> component.
> > Something such as poverty is a complex issue because it has many causes,
> and
> > not all who are poor are so for the same reasons. Attempts to solve an
> issue
> > such as poverty based on a simplistic definition results in "solutions"
> that
> > don't work. The better an understanding that we can get of the *facts*
of
> > the problem and their relationships the better chance we have of
evolving
> > solutions that will work in the sense that they will eliminate rather
than
> > alleviate the problem.
> > Nearly all complex problems are also systems problems in the sense that
> > there are very few "independent variables" - everything impacts
everything
> > else, and not all combinations of values are possible, and not all that
> are
> > theoretically possible are achievable.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Garold (Gary) L. Johnson
> >
> >
> >
>
> (016)