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. (01)
The phrase 'accept as fact' captures it.
We accept them as facts but should we...ever? (02)
Degrees of belief in testimony is our next topic. (03)
--
Peter (04)
----- 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 (05)
> >[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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> (06)