Fact/Theory or Factheory?

[luckyme]

Versions of this question have popped up in a couple of threads, so this is a specific probe -

Is there such a thing as a 'basic fact' or are all facts actually a fragment of an underlying abstract framework/theory?

The visual system may help by remembering those blind people who are given sight by an operation and can 'see' the objects in front of them in an optical sense but they don't represent anything to them. A ball isn't seen as being a sphere ...or anything really.

Iow, theory first, fact second?
I think we're born and quickly develop a rough and ready set of assumptions and fit the world into them, bootstrapping all the way up to Relativity and QM.
what say?

luckyme

[madnak]

I think theory comes first. What seems like indisputable fact is probably the result of "theoretical" frameworks that arise from our biology/socialization. Then again, that's based on my own theoretical framework.

[PairTheBoard]

Consider the development of the theory of light. The facts of data from experiments with lenses prompted the development of a theory that light behaves like waves. Since all other known waves required a medium in which to propogate the theory of ether was invented to support the wave theory of light. The data from the lens experiments were facts. The theory of the ether was not a fact.

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the development of the theory of light. The facts of data from experiments with lenses prompted the development of a theory that light behaves like waves. Since all other known waves required a medium in which to propogate the theory of ether was invented to support the wave theory of light. The data from the lens experiments were facts. The theory of the ether was not a fact.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only hope you're teasing me.

luckyme

[tame_deuces]

Technically humans are biological interpreters of input channeled through our bodies/brains.

What we see and experience are a result of this interpreter running and giving us a set 'result' eletrically / chemically / biologically.

We can't see 'facts' - we can only see our own representation of them. A good analogy would be programming a computer to 'perceive' light, sound, touch through the _context_ of its programming language & chipsets.

When we reason about _anything_ it will be a model, not fact.

[bunny]

I may be using the word wrong so jump in and define fact or theory if that will help...

I think facts exist quite independently of us or our theories (most of which dont contain facts imo). I think there was an answer to "How fast is the earth moving relative to the sun?" before anyone was around to ask it - I think that is one example of a fact.

If there are no facts until theories - do you have an explanation for why we end up agreeing with each other so much? We dont seem able to just make up anything - or at least usually agree on what is a "poor" theory. What is it that constrains the theories we come up with if it isnt facts about the world?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I may be using the word wrong so jump in and define fact or theory if that will help...

I think facts exist quite independently of us or our theories (most of which dont contain facts imo). I think there was an answer to "How fast is the earth moving relative to the sun?" before anyone was around to ask it - I think that is one example of a fact.

If there are no facts until theories - do you have an explanation for why we end up agreeing with each other so much? We dont seem able to just make up anything - or at least usually agree on what is a "poor" theory. What is it that constrains the theories we come up with if it isnt facts about the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the earth moving around the sun just model we created? The doesn't seem to be any need for it to be 'actually' moving around the sun any more than the sun was moving around the earth in the older model.

Agree with each other? hahahaha, don't you read SMP?
ok, we agree with each other because we're an evolved species with a general base model. We wouldn't agree that much with each other if I was a rattlesnake ( even being from 3000 BC may leave us with a lot of discrepancy with what we take as obvious now.)

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I may be using the word wrong so jump in and define fact or theory if that will help...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wish I could. I was hoping this thread would help me sort out just how those two concepts interact. I'm seeing them very intertwined and rather like a perpetual chicken-egg problem.

Think how model-ish your fact 'earth revolving around the sun' looks. Facts look like nodes on the model rather than floating around 'as is' waiting for a model to pick up on them.

sorry I'm not more help,
any comments are welcome, luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may be using the word wrong so jump in and define fact or theory if that will help...

I think facts exist quite independently of us or our theories (most of which dont contain facts imo). I think there was an answer to "How fast is the earth moving relative to the sun?" before anyone was around to ask it - I think that is one example of a fact.

If there are no facts until theories - do you have an explanation for why we end up agreeing with each other so much? We dont seem able to just make up anything - or at least usually agree on what is a "poor" theory. What is it that constrains the theories we come up with if it isnt facts about the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the earth moving around the sun just model we created? The doesn't seem to be any need for it to be 'actually' moving around the sun any more than the sun was moving around the earth in the older model.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there needs to be relative motion or our models are not going to go very well. (Alternately, a model we try and develop based on the Earth and Sun being stationary relative to each other is going to fail - I think it fails because it doesnt fit the facts).

[ QUOTE ]
Agree with each other? hahahaha, don't you read SMP?
ok, we agree with each other because we're an evolved species with a general base model. We wouldn't agree that much with each other if I was a rattlesnake ( even being from 3000 BC may leave us with a lot of discrepancy with what we take as obvious now.)

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is true for some things (art, beauty, justice,...) but not others. I would claim that everyone would agree that modus ponens is valid if they could understand what that meant (even the rattlesnake, imo) - our evolution may drive what kinds of theories or arguments we make, none of us have the choice to see modus ponens as invalid though, nor to make pi rational, nor to say that there is more water in the local creek than there is in the thames, or that you cant travel from the arctic to the antarctic without crossing the equatorial plane.

If there is some constraint on our correct theories, I think those constraints constitute facts about the world. I think what you're noticing is that we cant discuss facts without a theory. I think that's a limitation brought about by language and the way minds work though - I dont see how it suggests that nothing is actually true (if that's what you mean by facts exist).

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the earth moving around the sun just model we created? The doesn't seem to be any need for it to be 'actually' moving around the sun any more than the sun was moving around the earth in the older model.


I think there needs to be relative motion or our models are not going to go very well. (Alternately, a model we try and develop based on the Earth and Sun being stationary relative to each other is going to fail - I think it fails because it doesnt fit the facts).

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, bunny-just made a post as to movement of the Sun-we must be creaking into the same substance. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that's a limitation brought about by language and the way minds work though - I dont see how it suggests that nothing is actually true (if that's what you mean by facts exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't concerned with ultimate truth in this probe, although I certainly don't expect any of our models to resemble reality and the best we can hope for is a relationship.

[ QUOTE ]
I would claim that everyone would agree that modus ponens is valid

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's valid, but it isn't a product of reality, or not as I understand Hume. It's an abstract concept we create.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is some constraint on our correct theories, I think those constraints constitute facts about the world. I think what you're noticing is that we cant discuss facts without a theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you'll have cheered up Gould. In any case, I find that interesting but I'll have to noodle it a bit. Constraints may be more model dependent than you're making out right now.
Does this capture it --
Constraints are features of reality that restrict the models we come up with that can be said to 'work'. Facts are specific qualities that we can identify with the aid of constraint-restricted models.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there needs to be relative motion or our models are not going to go very well. (Alternately, a model we try and develop based on the Earth and Sun being stationary relative to each other is going to fail - I think it fails because it doesnt fit the facts).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if we take a different theoretical approach to time, then they might indeed appear stationary.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there needs to be relative motion or our models are not going to go very well. (Alternately, a model we try and develop based on the Earth and Sun being stationary relative to each other is going to fail - I think it fails because it doesnt fit the facts).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if we take a different theoretical approach to time, then they might indeed appear stationary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Model changes - facts change.

what do you think of the constraint potential in general in bunny's approach? I'm not sure they have to operate so tightly to the scope of our models if they operate on them at all.
It's a complicating aspect ( for me ) in trying to untangle facts and model/theory.

luckyme

[m_the0ry]

I think that both deductive and inductive reasoning are legitimate, but we can only make inductive statements about the real world.

Fact can exist only in an axiomatic sense, as in, "if we assume such-and-such, then it is fact that so-and-so".

[AlexM]

We need less factheories in order to cut down on global warming.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Model changes - facts change.

what do you think of the constraint potential in general in bunny's approach? I'm not sure they have to operate so tightly to the scope of our models if they operate on them at all.
It's a complicating aspect ( for me ) in trying to untangle facts and model/theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm sure we humans are predisposed toward certain views, and it seems likely that there are certain patterns that really do "exist" in nature in some form. Constraints might arise from either of these situations. I think we should always be careful of confusing the former with the latter - any apparent constraint may represent a flaw in our understanding, rather than a "fact."

I don't think we can ever know whether bunny's versions of "facts" exist. They may, but I think we, by our nature, can only "reach" them by getting up on a theoretical stepladder. Even if our "facts" are basically "true," our interpretation of them is probably colored considerably by how we choose to represent them.

I don't think our methods of reasoning have as close a relationship to reality as bunny seems to think. We easily confuse the limits of our thinking with the limits of reality, and there may be some kinds of valid reasoning that we aren't capable of (just as dogs aren't capable of reasoning at all, and as dolphins appear incapable of certain kinds of reasoning, etc - no reason to think we're at the top of the chain). In fact, I'd say "reasoning" is basically subroutines happening within the mechanism of the brain, and is therefore subject to mechanical error at some level. I would also say that the errors are probably very uncommon and very noticeable (as in computers), but that conclusion, being reached through the very processes I'm evaluating, is tainted.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there needs to be relative motion or our models are not going to go very well. (Alternately, a model we try and develop based on the Earth and Sun being stationary relative to each other is going to fail - I think it fails because it doesnt fit the facts).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if we take a different theoretical approach to time, then they might indeed appear stationary.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think if we did that (and were still able to make it consistent with reality) there would be other objects we would be forced to conclude were stationary. Having formed a model - we look around to see how good it is. I think this second part is where the facts come into play.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Constraints may be more model dependent than you're making out right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there are other constraints as well (ie I think our models are also limited by what we can imagine or inbuilt modes of thought).

[ QUOTE ]
Does this capture it --
Constraints are features of reality that restrict the models we come up with that can be said to 'work'. Facts are specific qualities that we can identify with the aid of constraint-restricted models.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Pretty much. Although I concede there is an inherent difficulty in ever actually knowing what a fact is. Further, I think we readily ascribe fact status to things which do not deserve the label. Nonetheless, postulating the existence of facts explains why we agree on so much.

How would a "facts dont exist" explanation of the following go?

I arrange a bunch of chairs in a room. A whole parade of people who've never posted on SMP walk in, count the chairs and write down how many they saw. At the end of the exercise I have a hundred bits of paper with "three" written on them. I think this points to a "fact" that there are three chairs in the room. How would you explain the agreement?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm sure we humans are predisposed toward certain views, and it seems likely that there are certain patterns that really do "exist" in nature in some form. Constraints might arise from either of these situations. I think we should always be careful of confusing the former with the latter - any apparent constraint may represent a flaw in our understanding, rather than a "fact."

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is very likely to occur - confusing our limited understanding with "the final answer".

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we can ever know whether bunny's versions of "facts" exist. They may, but I think we, by our nature, can only "reach" them by getting up on a theoretical stepladder. Even if our "facts" are basically "true," our interpretation of them is probably colored considerably by how we choose to represent them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree again - I'd be interested how you would explain the agreements we reach every day though. "Did it rain last night?" "Who won the game last night?" "How many fingers am I holding up?" etcetera. Most of the time we agree with answers to questions like this and when we dont, we can work out who is wrong in a way we'll all agree with. Sure it's not demonstrated beyond doubt, since we are inherently stuck in our own minds and therefore bound by our own limitations. Do you have a better explanation for these agreements?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think our methods of reasoning have as close a relationship to reality as bunny seems to think. We easily confuse the limits of our thinking with the limits of reality, and there may be some kinds of valid reasoning that we aren't capable of (just as dogs aren't capable of reasoning at all, and as dolphins appear incapable of certain kinds of reasoning, etc - no reason to think we're at the top of the chain). In fact, I'd say "reasoning" is basically subroutines happening within the mechanism of the brain, and is therefore subject to mechanical error at some level. I would also say that the errors are probably very uncommon and very noticeable (as in computers), but that conclusion, being reached through the very processes I'm evaluating, is tainted.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also dont mean to suggest we can know everything. If there's some higher level of reasoning beyond us a la your dogs to humans scale that doesnt invalidate what we can do. I also dont think that possibility implies that facts dont exist. My claim of facts existing doesnt rest on us being perfect reasoners.

I think there is a problem of epistemology which you are focussing on but which is separate to the claim I am making. By assuming facts exist, the question of whether we actually know any is not answered. I am only claiming we can infer their existence from the agreement we generally reach as to how the world actually is - I'm not providing a definitive way to tell fact from fiction.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree again - I'd be interested how you would explain the agreements we reach every day though. "Did it rain last night?" "Who won the game last night?" "How many fingers am I holding up?" etcetera. Most of the time we agree with answers to questions like this and when we dont, we can work out who is wrong in a way we'll all agree with. Sure it's not demonstrated beyond doubt, since we are inherently stuck in our own minds and therefore bound by our own limitations. Do you have a better explanation for these agreements?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I agree with you. I just think the possibility that we're wrong is important, and I think that we need to have a theoretical basis before we can come to conclusions.

[ QUOTE ]
I also dont mean to suggest we can know everything. If there's some higher level of reasoning beyond us a la your dogs to humans scale that doesnt invalidate what we can do. I also dont think that possibility implies that facts dont exist. My claim of facts existing doesnt rest on us being perfect reasoners.

I think there is a problem of epistemology which you are focussing on but which is separate to the claim I am making. By assuming facts exist, the question of whether we actually know any is not answered. I am only claiming we can infer their existence from the agreement we generally reach as to how the world actually is - I'm not providing a definitive way to tell fact from fiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm thinking of facts in a human sense. Or, "for all intents and purposes," facts can't exist without theory. In terms of "real" facts, I don't think it matters or that unmodified humans can ever know or interact with these "facts" directly. We need a go-between (our thought processes, our sensory inputs) and as a result we're always separated from the "real facts." We should probably believe in facts, but I think that belief stems from our inclinations and our intuition, so I don't think we have any "ultimate" basis for saying "it is more likely that facts exist than it is that facts don't exist." Only "it seems likely to me that facts exist" or "my mind can't function unless I assume that facts exists, so I do."

[Piers]

Bit confused by what you’re asking however,

Facts, I prefer to use the term assumptions, which in practise I generally treat as synonymous.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Bit confused by what you’re asking however,

Facts, I prefer to use the term assumptions, which in practise I generally treat as synonymous.

[/ QUOTE ]

bunny and madnak have done an excellent job tearing at the concepts.
in the OP I used the repaired blind that still can't see even though they can , another simple analogy is the big dipper, which only is a fact of the night sky because we have a concept of dippers. A culture without that would just see a jumble of stars in that portion of the sky ( or perhaps a bear).

I like bunnies constraint idea, perhaps because of the role it plays in evolution also makes it feel familiar, but I probably have less confidence in the direct relationship between the constraint and 'facts'. The blind in the OP shows one possible answer to bunnies "why do we all see 3 chairs" .. apparently we don't unless we've been taught/learned to see chairs at the very least.

The main point of the OP was to check my discomfort with the confidence so often placed on 'facts' without recognizing their dependence on some model. I was seeing a messier connection between fact and model/theory and was hoping for some good discussion of it.

good input you guys, it's a great illustration of why I log on to SMP, thanks, luckyme

[drzen]

I'll try a brief answer.

Science takes as axiomatic that there is a world, and that it consists of things that can in principle be observed. It does not prima facie make assumptions about those things. It does not even claim that it can investigate the whole of the world, only that it can investigate the "natural". (Which is a bit hard to explain in a nutshell but effectively means it claims only to be able to investigate things that can have facts about them, IOW, only those things that are in principle observable.)

A fact is an observation about a thing. It does not have to be true. But it must be the same observation, in principle, that any observer would make if equipped in the same way, from the same standpoint. (Obviously, if a person is colourblind, they are not able to agree that "the apple is red", which poses the question whether that is a fact.)

Theories explain how facts are related, and generally because they explain relationships, they can predict new facts (often because the relationships they describe are implied between a fact that is known and one that is not).

Facts do not have to precede theories. You could predict facts without having any "input" to your theory. (You can predict that relationships will be seen without knowing which facts they will relate.) But of course they generally do, because they are the material that suggests relationships that further investigation can confirm to some extent or disprove. I think that looking at it from this angle should make it clear that it's a lot easier to disprove the existence of relationships than to prove them. The range of possible relationships can be very wide, and one pair of facts that are not related in the way predicted can disprove one particular relationship, so that you can never have certainty that the relationship you have identified actually holds.

But facts, in this model, are observer dependent. A different observer can have a different view. But this does not detract from science, because it does not say "these are the facts". It says "if you agree that these are the facts (ie if you observe what I observe) then you can see these relationships are possible".

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Facts do not have to precede theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was more 'can facts precede theory/model' that attracted my attention.

luckyme

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Facts do not have to precede theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was more 'can facts precede theory/model' that attracted my attention.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they can, and often do. I think you would far more often have something you observe and want to explain, than you'd have an explanation in search of facts. But in explaining some facts, you create the framework to discover others, so both are true.