A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by apathist
The observations, descriptions, and interpretations are all part of our understandings, they are part of the map. I guess you say that observations are part of the terrain?

I guess you say that observations are part of the terrain?

In a sense, I suppose they are—to the extent that we are part of the terrain, along with our observing and map-making activity. So there is an element of reflexivity. But I believe we both have been using the term "terrain" to mean the exogenous reality that we are observing/mapping.

For the rest, I just refer you to the “Language” thread I started in the Science Forum, in which I asked our scientist friends to weigh in. In particular, I quote DeepThought, in part:

“So, I think that the word "fact" has the same meaning as in philosophy and ordinary usage. When facts turn out to be wrong, as can happen, then the old facts are no longer viewed as facts and the new facts replace them. Formally the old facts weren't ever facts. Because we live with imperfect truth tests, and natural languages are loose, scientists like any other group, will talk about facts being wrong. This is just an informal usage of the word fact. What they really mean is that the old statements were mistaken for facts, but in fact were not.”

And Sonhouse: “We don't use 'facts' to describe observations ever. An observation is a data point and that is all.”

I did not confirm your point: I granted the possibility of an alternative usage in science, and went to the Science Forum to find out.

I also refer you to DeepThought’s posts in this thread on page 29, in particular:

1. “In the case of a sentence whose truth isn't known with certainty you might want to call it a provisional fact, but most of us just put up with the possibility that something we think is a fact isn't. Since we do not expect truth tests to be infallible we have to put up with the risk that some of what we think are facts aren't in fact facts. Basically, a sentence that has passed some reasonable truth test is treated as a fact until shown to be otherwise. That there's some uncertainty surrounding facts does not mean that they can be both wrong and facts.”

2. “Candidate meaning (1) A state of affairs. Candidate meaning (2) is a statement about the World. I think in actual usage there is considerable blurring between meanings 1 and meaning 2.” And: “ In the light of that I'm altering my stance. The word "fact" has two meanings. The division between a statement about a thing and the thing itself is blurry. I feel it ought to denote a statement that is true, the problem is that it is used in this equivocating way. The constraint on the statement is that it is true, in other words says something which corresponds to actuality, so there is this confusion between the map and the territory.”

You are the only one who has claimed that a fact can be wrong and still be considered to be a fact. But it does appear that the term "fact" can legitimately refer to both a state of affairs and a true statement of that state of affairs. I accept that.

I leave it there.Thanks for the good discussion.

Originally posted by vistesd
...
I leave it there.Thanks for the good discussion.[/b]

Welcome. I appreciate you.

The saga of Pluto demonstrates my case conclusively. Pluto was a planet, and that was a fact. But now it isn't a planet, and that is a fact. The facts about Pluto changed, but Pluto did not.

The terrain was unchanged, but the map changed. Clearly facts refer to our knowledge about something - they refer to the map.

That is why facts can be wrong. Our maps can be wrong. Knowledge is fallible.

Bombproof.

Originally posted by apathist
The saga of Pluto demonstrates my case conclusively. Pluto was a planet, and that was a fact. But now it isn't a planet, and that is a fact. The facts about Pluto changed, but Pluto did not.

The saga of Pluto is often misunderstood. All that actually changed was a definition.

The terrain was unchanged, but the map changed. Clearly facts refer to our knowledge about something - they refer to the map.
But our knowledge about Pluto did not change. Only our label changed.

That is why facts can be wrong. Our maps can be wrong. Knowledge is fallible.
Bombproof.
Our knowledge of Pluto was never wrong. That it was a planet was not wrong. That it is no longer a planet is not wrong. Our knowledge of Pluto in that particular instance may be fallible but was not proven so.
Boom.

Think of it this way. There is a street named James Street in a certain city. Everyone considers that a fact. The local government decides to rename it John Street. Was the former 'fact' not a fact? Was our knowledge fallible? The facts about the street have changed because everything in the universe changes with time so most facts are time sensitive and have an implicit date and other context in them and this is so whether or not we are talking about the map or the terrain. The map must be changed when the Street name is changed.

The saga of Pluto is often misunderstood.
I know. That's why I was surprised it was sufficient to slap down the notion that facts are part of the terrain instead of being parts of the map.

All that actually changed was a definition.
Our knowledge and understanding changed. That's why we changed the definition. It had been coming for a while.

Our knowledge of Pluto was never wrong. That it was a planet was not wrong. That it is no longer a planet is not wrong.
I agree. This isn't a case of facts being wrong. It's a case of the facts about something undergoing change, and yet the something that the facts are about DID NOT change. And so it is obvious that facts are part of the map and are not the terrain itself. This isn't rocket surgery.

The map must be changed when the Street name is changed.
Yes. Proving that facts are mental entities that describe the world, and are not the world itself.

(imagine talking to tw about a subject that is actually controversial)

Originally posted by apathist
I know. That's why I was surprised it was sufficient to slap down the notion that facts are part of the terrain instead of being parts of the map.

Except it wasn't sufficient.

Our knowledge and understanding changed. That's why we changed the definition. It had been coming for a while.
But not our knowledge and understanding of Pluto. What changed is our discovery of other bodies of similar size. We changed the definition because we are uncomfortable having 20 planets.
Some people would say that no facts changed, other people would say that they did. Neither would be wrong. They would just be using different definitions.
Some people still call Pluto a planet. They are not wrong.

I agree. This isn't a case of facts being wrong. It's a case of the facts about something undergoing change, and yet the something that the facts are about DID NOT change.
So it is your contention that the same 'fact' when written in Chinese is different?

And so it is obvious that facts are part of the map and are not the terrain itself. This isn't rocket surgery.
Sorry, but definitions do not have a 'true' value. We can decide to use the word 'fact' to refer to the map or the terrain. There is no one perfect way to use it.

Yes. Proving that facts are mental entities that describe the world, and are not the world itself.
No, it proves no such thing. Read my post again more carefully. The map describes the world. The map isn't necessarily 'facts'. That is a matter of choice, just as calling Pluto a planet is a matter of choice.

What changed is our discovery of other bodies of similar size.
Which changed our understanding of Pluto.

We changed the definition because we are uncomfortable having 20 planets.
lol@u

So it is your contention that the same 'fact' when written in Chinese is different?
You have a book of evasive tactics, and you're not afraid to use them.

Sorry, but definitions do not have a 'true' value. We can decide to use the word 'fact' to refer to the map or the terrain. There is no one perfect way to use it.
That might be an interesting point to discuss. If I could find a reasonable thinker.

No, it proves no such thing. Read my post again more carefully. The map describes the world. The map isn't necessarily 'facts'. That is a matter of choice, just as calling Pluto a planet is a matter of choice.
Science tells me what the world is made of. If science is wrong, and that is certainly possible, there is your burden. I say the world is made of matter and energy, while facts are bits of knowledge, and you need to research "bombproof".

He'll be back, all posturing, and I'll be like, what about my points, and he'll like posture again.

I guess I'm the stupider, since I will not back off. And I have maybe a buck fifty per week!

Originally posted by apathist
Which changed our understanding of Pluto.

No, not really.

lol@u
Try and be more coherent.

You have a book of evasive tactics, and you're not afraid to use them.
There is nothing evasive about what I said, but your response is clearly evasive given your failure to answer the question.
Is it, or is it not your contention that facts are different when expressed in different words? If a definition changes then the 'fact' changes according to you even if what is being described or what we know about it hasn't changed at all.
Are 'facts' different in different languages?
A map different when a different projection is used. The terrain is not.

That might be an interesting point to discuss. If I could find a reasonable thinker.
Well don't expect to find too many if you behave obnoxiously when you find out you are wrong.

Science tells me what the world is made of. If science is wrong, and that is certainly possible, there is your burden. I say the world is made of matter and energy, while facts are bits of knowledge, and you need to research "bombproof".
And I say that the word 'fact' is used to refer to either the map or the terrain in different contexts and by different people and often it simply doesn't matter which it is referring to and it is ambiguous. But there is no doubt whatsoever that both uses have significant precedence.

Originally posted by apathist
He'll be back, all posturing, and I'll be like, what about my points, and he'll like posture again.

I guess I'm the stupider, since I will not back off. And I have maybe a buck fifty per week!

If you had points to make you wouldn't need to write such posts like that.

Originally posted by apathist
The saga of Pluto demonstrates my case conclusively. Pluto was a planet, and that was a fact. But now it isn't a planet, and that is a fact. The facts about Pluto changed, but Pluto did not.

The terrain was unchanged, but the map changed. Clearly facts refer to our knowledge about something - they refer to the map.

That is why facts can be wrong. Our maps can be wrong. Knowledge is fallible.

Bombproof.

Pluto's planetary status is not a matter of fact. The relevant facts are that it is a sphere, that it orbits a star, and that it has not cleared its orbit. The current interpretation of these facts is that it does not count as a planet.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Pluto's planetary status is not a matter of fact. The relevant facts are that it is a sphere, that it orbits a star, and that it has not cleared its orbit. The current interpretation of these facts is that it does not count as a planet.

Surely that it is a 'sphere' is also the current interpretation of its shape matching an idealised shape we call a 'sphere'. ie whether it is a sphere depends on whether its physical characteristics fit a given definition, and whether it is a planet depends on whether its physical characteristics fit a given definition. So I don't see the significant difference between:
Pluto is a sphere.
and
Pluto is a planet.
that makes one a fact and one not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely that it is a 'sphere' is also the current interpretation of its shape matching an idealised shape we call a 'sphere'. ie whether it is a sphere depends on whether its physical characteristics fit a given definition, and whether it is a planet depends on whether its physical characteristics fit a given definition. So I don't see the significant difference between:
Pluto is a sphere.
and
Pluto is a planet.
that makes one a fact and one not.

I see what you're getting at however, the definition of a sphere is not going to change. The definition of a planet was originally a wandering star and changed as our knowledge improved. Really it should be that the object has enough mass that its shape is determined by its own gravity rather than just "is a sphere", but I wanted to keep my point simple. I took a quick look at Wikipedia and it also gives "not massive enough to cause nuclear fusion", in other words isn't a smaller star orbiting a larger one. The type specimens are the original five objects the ancients could see (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) to the ancients the Earth would not count as a planet as it would not be obvious to them that the Earth is like the wandering stars. So whether something is a planet or not depends on how like them it is. The definition is designed to select objects that are like the planets, whereas the definition of a sphere is just that all it's points are the same distance from its center. So I feel that what one is doing is collecting some facts about an object and then making an assessment as to how similar to one of the type specimens it is. So you could argue that "Pluto is [not] a planet." is a fact based on the interpretation of other facts. But I'm advocating a fairly atomic type of fact, rather than one built from "smaller" facts.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I see what you're getting at however, the definition of a sphere is not going to change.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that the definition of 'sphere' will ever change. But there are plenty of definitions that do change such as the example I gave earlier of a street name, or even 'sphere' in another language. There is no real distinction between 'planet' and 'sphere' that makes one factual and the other an interpretation. Both are words that have specific definitions that a given object either matches or does not match.
I personally would never say that the facts have changed just because a definition is changed. Apathist apparently would, but isn't willing to address the implication that the facts change when language changes.