Re: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our Name
Hmm.
>[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)
> [GP]A fact, at best, is a first order abstraction of (perceived) reality. (02)
>[GJ] 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. (03)
I would agree that the _proposition_, that is the articulation of an aspect of
the perceived world classified as a fact, is an abstraction. But the proposition
isn't the fact in my scheme of things :-) The fact is the referent (chunk of
reality referred to) of the proposition. (04)
> on; (3) a lot of what gets said in this area ends up being "true, but not
useful". (05)
I'm being pedantic about the definition of facts because I believe that being
able to identify the factually based beliefs as distinct from 'faiths' (if you
will) plays a significant role in the ability to define the scope of
projects/problems. (06)
--
Peter (07)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerald Pierce" <g_pierce@pacbell.net>
To: <ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: Facts - an attempted definition WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our
Name (08)
> Peter. I take exception to your excepted exception.
>
> A fact, at best, is a first order abstraction of (perceived) reality.
> That what I say about a thing is incomplete and based upon my senses, my tools
> for enhancing my senses, and all the semantic machinery's ability to make it
> mean something. Certainly it is incomplete. Its full meaning can only exist in
> the context from which it was removed. Removal changes meaning.
>
> That having been said, facts (data, inputs or whatever one wants to call it)
are
> as good as it gets for us language using humans. Use them in good health and
> enjoy, but always with a hintergedanken there is more to know than you have at
> hand and that "more" can kick your natural sitting zone something fierce from
> time to time.
>
> Seems to me that (1) you are both correct; (2) this is a fun argument to chew
> on; (3) a lot of what gets said in this area ends up being "true, but not
useful".
>
> In the last respect, I am reminded of Microsoft Help files, but that is
another
> story. Furthermore............Oh God, I'm rambling again!
>
> Ger qeds
>
>
> Peter Jones wrote:
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> (09)