kagetora wrote:Right, I've had this arguement before on a different forum, but when is a fact a fact?
My view on this is:
A fact is a fact when one perceives it to be irrevocably true.
A fact to one person is not necessarily a fact to another.
Each of these is VERY fundamentally wrong.
A fact does NOT vary from person to person, a fact IS. PERIOD.
You can be mistaken ... think something is a fact, when it is not, but the distinction of science is that it undergoes steps to ensure those mistakes happen infrequently. The possibility of error, however, is why almost everything a scientist says is couched in "maybes".
UNDERSTANDING this distinction is critical, particular today when so much information is available. It is CRITICAL to know what is verifiable and what is not.
A fact does not have to be mathematically or scientifically proven.
This is true.
I've come to this conclusion during religious debate. To Christians, that their God exists is an undeniably fact. To Atheists, that no god exists is absolute fact. Are they both true? No. Only one is, but both perceive them to be facts. They do not share the same view. And, you cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity.
There is a subtle, but EXTREMELY important distinction here.
Those are BELIEFS. To a Believer (be it a Christian, Athiest or believer in Chocolate as the cure to all ills) a belief is equivalent in importance to an absolute fact,
but beliefs are NOT facts!
Facts can be divided up into types.
The first is the definition. A definition is true, plain and simply
because we say it is trueA square is a a sqaure - a two diminesional object with 4 equal sides. We can debate and discuss where the definition ends and so forth ... for example, if you blow up a picture of a square a million times, you see a bunch of dots .. is it still a square? It is a matter of clarification, of debate, NOT proof.
The second type of fact is, in its purest, a
scientific fact. This is something that has been observed and tested and REPEATED.
The tricky part is that most things are sort of a combination of both. For example, I see the sun rise up. I describe it. Am I proving something? No. I am relaying information. I am describing something. My description is a "fact" in the sense that it is actually what I saw. BUT, are my observations correct? Are they really "facts". Partially, they are definitions. Any colors, any sort of description I might use is actually a definition. So far, so good. So far, my description is, essentially, one big definition. A definition of what I saw. (bear with me here). EXCEPT, the problem comes when you try to relate this to other things.
If you are making a story or a poem, that is "enough". Poets will "play" with the words and try to come up with what are, essentially more entertaining or even "better" definitions. (better does not necessarily mean more pure, in this sense. The description of the sun might end up also being an illustration of love, for example).
BUT, let's say you wanted to communicate something about this to another scientist who was studying sunrises. You might, then, measure the light frequencies. The frequencies, the measures, are all definitions. BUT the numbers you come up with
using those definitions would be a fact ... if correct and verifiable.
MATH borders the two. Numbers, for example are essentially definitions. BUT, they are also real concepts that can be worked with an proven. So, that .... is 4 dots is a matter of definition. BUT that . + . + . + . = 4 can be proven,
given that definition.
Science, too, is often a mixture of the two ... and many perambulations as well.
A tree is a tree ... why? because we say so. BUT, scientifically, what makes a tree a tree? Why is one thing a tree and another a bush? Size? No, because we have Bonzai (just to name one example). The definition involves bark, etc. (I am not debating trees, just drawing an example) If, then you find a new species, you can apply the definition of the tree to see if what you found is one or not. You might even find that it matches only part of the definition of a tree.... and part of something else. Then you have a debate. Scientists might then decide that the definition needs revision (this happened at some point when whales and dolphins were found to be mammals) OR\ they might decide this is something different. AND ... that
definition might get revised with greater knowledge later.
Definitions can be changed ... though we need to be very, very careful or pretty soon no one will understand anyone else. BUT, the matters they pertain to actually do not change. Rainbow trout, for example (also steelhead) was classified with brown trout and so forth not so long ago. BUT, further research convinced folks that it more properly belonged with the salmon, since in its steelhead form, it migrats and such like salmon. Did the fish change? No, only our description.
One of the most basic and EXTREMELY critical issues today is the potential for the internet to re-write what constitutes a fact. HOW? It begins with folks just like you. Folks who think that the strict definition just does not matter. OR that like to have fun with stretching boundaries ... and so do,
no matter the consequences.
Statistics are a classic place where folks err because they fail to look at real definitions, fail to really understand that which the discuss. Remember the old joke "what is the most dangerous place on earth, statistically speaking?" The answer -- (for the joke) is "bed". BUT, any statistician knows instantly that is really not true. (sorry to spoil the joke, but...) Statistics do NOT say bed is more dangerous. Statistics say that more people die in bed. PERIOD. It is human beings that add in the cause, that lay the "blame", if you will, on the bed. THAT is the problem. And THAT is why understanding the differences between fact and non facts, the reason UNDERSTANDING scientific processes (at least in a general way) and mathematics (again, at least in a general way) is so critical. Because if you don't you make mistakes, misunderstand too easily. Too many people look and say "bed is dangerous because a lot of people die there". Okay, maybe not really, but we DO make these mistakes, often in other areas. I am going to step on a bit of a limb and say that arguments against vaccinations fall largely into this realm. One issue is that people often see symptoms right after a vaccination and attribute the problem to the vaccination when the vaccination itself really is not the cause at all. A second problem is that there ARE real and true side effects, up to and including death, from a vaccination. BUT, those side effects pale to the effect that would come from the diseases themselves. We, today, in our society are spoiled by access to medicine. When you have little chance, for example, of getting Polio, then it might seem reasonable (in a certain sense) to question giving the vaccine that might cause death in some rare instances. BUT, go to Africa, where parents know full well the impact of Polio and you find no such questions. You find parents walking for hundreds of miles on the mere hope of obtaining vaccines for their children. They KNOW how life-saving these medicines are. They KNOW how horrific the illnesses are. Now, I am not really trying to get into a debate about vaccines. I will say that there ARE legitimate questions, but that they fall more in the "edges". That is, we can perhaps better define who should and should not get the vaccines, perhaps should not give so many at one time, even perhaps should change certain additives... etc. BUT all that is for another thread. My point is that the basic idea of vaccinations is sound, EVEN WITH the dangers (which are real, make no mistake)... they are real, just not as bad as the diseases themselves.
If you are talking to a Christian, certainly that God exists will be equivalent to a fact. We basically consider it a "fact". BUT, only "basically". For practical purposes, it matters not. BUT, if you are getting into fine definitions, pronouncements, communicating with others, it becomes EXTREMELY important to distinguish.
If I am talking to another Christian, I
might, possibly use the word fact (in general, I am too much of a scientist to do so, but I could). BUT, ALWAYS, in the back of my mind is the knowledge that since I cannot prove this to anyone else, it is not, truly a "fact" by the world's definition.
So, if someone is debating and tells you, a non Christian, that God is a "fact". You can correct them and say. "You believe this is true, but it is not a fact" because you cannot prove God's existance to one who does not wish to believe.
OF course, in some cases, folks can refuse to believe even facts ... but that is an entirely different issue. You can lead a horse to water, but cannot make them drink.. or even make them see the water, if it insists on keeping its eyes closed.
NEOTENY can always make me laugh. This guy needs a talk show.
