Fact/Theory or Factheory?

[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."