[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author

Breaking the Circle WAS: Re: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our Name


> Trying to go through all of the pros and cons, evidence, assumptions,
> validity and value of sources over time, etc. when you actually have to
> operate in the world is paralyzing.    (01)

Is it time to re-evaluate this? Let's open this idea to critique. Not because
it is necessarily wrong superficially, but because maybe this is one of those
ideas that has become so culturally embedded that we can't see how dependent on
the current social constructs it is. The need to improve our approach to the
existence requires us to enter the critique from that angle.
Imagine one did have time to do those things (going through pros and cons etc.),
it seems likely that that would not paralyse us outright, imho, but greatly
improve the quality of our acting. Particularly if we had good tool support for
such evaluation.    (02)

The current attitude to solving world problems seems to turn upon:
-- believing we don't have time to evaluate things properly before it all
crashes and burns
-- believing we aren't able to buy the time to evaluate things properly before
...
(And the only folks that can afford to buy the time as things stand have a
short-sighted vested interest in not spending their money that way.)
So it seems like there is a two-pronged/layered, tacit cost/benefit analysis
going on with our attitude to solving world problems at present that continually
tells us we don't have time to do things properly. And that tacit precursor
stymies us.
We think we're stuck in a system that stops us from fixing it.
No wonder we can't fix anything.    (03)

In the near term I might make a suggestion to those involved with IBIS that has
perhaps been tried before. What would happen if you let the parties to a
discussion rate their degree of belief/faith in the assertions of others
explicitly?    (04)

--
Peter    (05)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our
Name    (06)


> * We accept them as facts but should we...ever?
>
> "Certainty, not data, is knowledge". When we accept statements or beliefs as
> facts we operate as though they in fact represent reality. Since action is
> necessary, we need to be able to act as though we are certain at times when
> it may not be entirely true.
>
> I try to operate on levels:
> * Reviewing evidence, experience, reports to come to some sort of
> probability of truth value.
> * Operate as though some of the probabilities are certainties.
> * Iterate
>
> Trying to go through all of the pros and cons, evidence, assumptions,
> validity and value of sources over time, etc. when you actually have to
> operate in the world is paralyzing.
>
> Failure to open :operational certainties" to verification of the sort above
> when there is time and / or accumulating evidence requiring re-evaluation
> leads to fixed ideas that can never be questioned, which is a really bad
> idea.
>
> So, I see different activities as appropriate at different times and with
> different purposes.
>
> 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: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:03 PM
> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
> Subject: Re: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In
> Our Name
>
> > The issue is one of how we come to accept as fact reports which we cannot
> verify
> > directly.
>
> The phrase 'accept as fact' captures it.
> We accept them as facts but should we...ever?
>
> Degrees of belief in testimony is our next topic.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" <dynalt@dynalt.com>
> To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 7:49 PM
> Subject: 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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: 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> > >[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."
> >
> > I would stand by this in spite of what you've written below. e.g.
> >
> > >[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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > E.g It is a fact that this is a reply to your email.
> >
> > --
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 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
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>    (07)