A Brute Fact ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 ...[text shortened]... would, but isn't willing to address the implication that the facts change when language changes.

Well, a street is a well defined thing, a street name is just a label. What I'm trying to get at is that "planet" is like the concept of "street" rather than "street name". If we decided to rename the planet Earth George we wouldn't be changing its status as a planet. If on the other hand we insisted that it must be larger by a big enough factor than any satellite we could turn the Earth Moon system into a binary planet and Earth would lose its status as a planet. The latter involves a change in our understanding of the concept of planet and so although none of the relevant facts surrounding the Earth Moon system have changed, our interpretation of what it is has.

So whether facts can change or not depends on how basic the fact is and the assessment of whether something is a planet depends on a number of factors. Although, I'll grant you that the assessment of whether a geometrical object is a sphere or not depends on the distance of each of its points from the center which counts as an infinite number of facts. But the combination of facts for the sphere still doesn't depend on interpretation. Whereas for the planet one has to make an assessment as to whether their orbits are sufficiently cleared and their shape is sufficiently determined by their gravity and spin. These facts are open to interpretation and so the assessment of whether an object is a planet or not depends on a judgement call. If one is strict about "cleared its orbit" then all the planets are minor planets because of the accumulation of objects at the Lagrange points.

So that kind of fact, one depending on interpretation, can change. But the basic facts can't (modulo evolution of orbits, catastrophic events and so forth).

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, a street is a well defined thing,

Is it? I can show you streets that you would be hard pressed to say where they start or end or if they are, in fact, streets.

..a street name is just a label. What I'm trying to get at is that "planet" is like the concept of "street" rather than "street name".
I agree a street name is more a proper name than a generic definition. But the point still stands. Most people would say that changing a label doesn't change a fact.

If on the other hand we insisted that it must be larger by a big enough factor than any satellite we could turn the Earth Moon system into a binary planet and Earth would lose its status as a planet. The latter involves a change in our understanding of the concept of planet and so although none of the relevant facts surrounding the Earth Moon system have changed, our interpretation of what it is has.
But still, nothing more than a label change.

But the combination of facts for the sphere still doesn't depend on interpretation.
It most definitely does. Some would refuse to accept that the earth is a sphere and insist on calling it an oblate spheroid. Others would say it isn't even that. Lets say 'sphere-like'.

So that kind of fact, one depending on interpretation, can change. But the basic facts can't (modulo evolution of orbits, catastrophic events and so forth).
I would say that the fact doesn't change, what changes is the interpretation. In fact I wouldn't even say it is the 'interpretation' that changes but merely the label. The decision as to whether or not to categorise an object as a planet. And the reality is that it has very little to do with size, shape, orbit or whether or not it has cleared out its space, it is all about tradition and the definition is manipulated to fit with tradition. The problems start when it is difficult to find a suitable definition that fits tradition, hence the reason Pluto had to be ejected (and not everyone accepts its ejection).

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.

Nice try, but clearly the saga of Pluto is also explicable within a number of views that differ materially from yours regarding the ontology of facts.

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

Fallibilism regarding knowledge just holds that epistemic certainty is not necessary for knowledge. In no way, shape, or form does that imply that facts can be wrong, nor does it nullify the analytic condition that propositional truth is necessary for knowledge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it? I can show you streets that you would be hard pressed to say where they start or end or if they are, in fact, streets.

[b]..a street name is just a label. What I'm trying to get at is that "planet" is like the concept of "street" rather than "street name".
I agree a street name is more a proper name than a generic definition. But the poin ...[text shortened]... its tradition, hence the reason Pluto had to be ejected (and not everyone accepts its ejection).[/b]

When I was talking about a sphere I said a geometrical object, I did not say a physical one. To be a sphere a geometrical object has to have all its points equidistant from its center, if they are not it is not a sphere. In the case of a physical object even something like an isolated proton is only approximately spherical. Regarding the rest of your post, you do not seem to be saying anything substantially different from what I did, so I'm left wondering what your criticism is.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Regarding the rest of your post, you do not seem to be saying anything substantially different from what I did, so I'm left wondering what your criticism is.

I think our main disagreement is that I say that whether or not Pluto is a planet is merely a matter of definition, nothing more, whereas you say it differs substantially from the question of whether or not Pluto is a sphere. I fail to see the difference. I would also say that whether Pluto is a planet or not can be called a fact as can whether or not it is a sphere, and by so saying, we are stating that Pluto satisfactorily matches the descriptions or not. Whether the fact is the statement that there is a match or the fact is the actuality of matching depends on context but typically doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Nice try, but clearly the saga of Pluto is also explicable within a number of views that differ materially from yours regarding the ontology of facts.
So what? People put effort into flat earth and astrology - should that mean that they are on equal footing with reasonable views?

Fallibilism regarding knowledge just holds that epistemic certainty is not necessary for knowledge. In no way, shape, or form does that imply that facts can be wrong, nor does it nullify the analytic condition that propositional truth is necessary for knowledge.
In way, shape and form it is required by the view that facts are bits of knowledge.

And the particular analytic condition you mention is merely very bad philosophy which I admit is in vogue. But I'm proud of you for getting toward the root issue here.

I claim knowledge is fallible. You counter by asserting knowledge must be truth. JTB?