"I'm a Scientist. and I don't believe in Facts" Topic

"They say that we have found ourselves in a world lost to emotion, irrationality, and a weakening grasp on reality. That lies don't faze us, and knowledge doesn't impress us. That we are post-truth, post-fact. But, is this actually a bad thing?

I'm a factual relativist. I abandoned the idea of facts and "the truth" some time last year. I wrote a whole science book, The Memory Illusion, almost never mentioning the terms fact and truth. Why? Because much like Santa Claus and unicorns, facts don't actually exist. At least not in the way we commonly think of them.

We think of a fact as an irrefutable truth. According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true." And where does proof come from? Science?…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Facts are predictable observable consistent events.

Science doesn't care about "truth". Truth is a social construct. The word carries far too much baggage with it to be useful in a scientific context.

I like that. The best line for me is:

"…..scientists don't prove anything. What we do is collect evidence that supports or does not support our predictions."

Reminds me of Kenneth Miller stating that a "fact" is not that important in science. A fact, totally by itself, doesn't tell you much. The fact gains importance only when in context with a hypothesis, or better yet, a theory. The fact is only one little bit of evidence that makes or breaks the model created to describe the natural world.

As for the Oxford dictionary, words are used differently in different contexts. What Tango quotes is a legal or lexicographic definition of "fact" and not necessarily a scientific one. Just look what trouble we get into with the word "Theory".

Facts are useful but not always permanent. Where I live, it is a fact that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. On a different planet this may not be true, in the future it may not be true here. But for now, the sun rises in the East, sets in the West. This fact is very useful. It helps in navigation for instance.

Some things are not facts. Some things are opion. Opinion is about personal believe – and just because the person thinks that his opinion is true doesn't make it so. But it might be.

Any good (bad?) lawyer will tell you that truth is over rated. Truth is rarely pure. It can be hedged with condtions. It is true that the sun rises in the East and Sets in the West – but it is a very limited truth. East and West are linguistic conventions for a start…

You also need to define both the words fact and truth in the context you are using them… in some areas (politics? law?) the two words can be very flexible in meaning.

There's also the barely discussed notion that conversational English != scientific English.

from Somerville and Hassol (2011)

PDF link

Good list, Martin. Climate change deniers sure have had a lot of traction from "manipulation", just as Creationists have had with the term "theory".

By the way…

"Half of People Believe Fake Facts"

"In a study on false memories, Dr. Scoboria and co-authors demonstrate that if we are told about a completely fictitious event from our lives, and repeatedly imagine that event occurring, almost half of us would accept that it did.

"Memories are precious. They bond relationships, contribute to a sense of identity, and shape current decisions and future planning," the authors said.

"Memories may also seem eternal, like cherished photographs in an album we peruse from time to time. Our memories play major roles in making us who we are. Our beliefs about our personal histories both reflect and constitute central aspects of ourselves."

"Yet remembering the past is a complex phenomenon that is subject to error," they noted…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

The "Satanic Ritual Abuse" mania of the 80's is Exhibit A for that.

Hafen von S and Tango

Absolutely! Also the McMartin trial. "Experts" planted false memories into susceptible minds which needlessly convicted innocent people.The longest and costliest criminal trial in American history.

Good conversation here, I downloaded the .pdf and forwarded the TMP link to my girlfriend, who is a scientist.

Happy for that my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

A double dose of stupidity from that era: when I was living in Richmond, Va,in the late 80's, a Satanic Ritual Abuse "expert" told a local newspaper reporter in an interview that her estimate was that 10% of the Richmond area population practiced Satanism.

"Really? Ten percent seems kind of high", said the obviously skeptical reporter.

"Well,that's five per cent of adults, and five per cent of children".

D'oh!

Good list, Martin. Climate change deniers sure have had a lot of traction from "manipulation", just as Creationists have had with the term "theory".

Or "Mike's Nature trick" and "hide the decline"…

My favorite fact: Existence is inarguable………….

A quick trip to Wiki will show that a few people can actually argue with the "cogito ergo sum" statement. Including such heavy hitters like Nietzsche and Hume.

I agree with you…….if that counts for anything

"I refute it. . .thus!"

You exist to refute … thus. A non existent thing cannot frame a thought or argument.

I was referring to Hume.
Although the original was a response to Berkeley.

My favorite fact: Existence is inarguable………….

Ok before we go down a pointless philosophical avenue, let's try to return to the original topic.

Sure facts are important. Like "where are my car keys?", or "when is my wife's birthday?" Pointing out that facts are important or what your favourite fact is misses the point of the OP.

In science, an individual fact, isolated and without any context is not that important a thing, if your goal is trying to understand the physical world around you. Facts, evidence and observations are collected and from this, models of how things work are made up. Sure you have the fact that chlorophyll is green, but why is that the case? What does chlorophyll do? You have to insert that fact into the context to the model, on how you think things around you work. Depending on how the facts support the model and how well the model predicts future observations is what interests the scientists.

By way of crude analogy, let's say both GWA and I are standing in front of Amiens Cathedral. GWA is taking in the magnificence of the entire edifice and I'm going on about my favourite stone in the third flying buttress. One of us is missing out on a lot. And no one is saying that the individual stone in that buttress isn't important. It's just that the engineers and architects are more interested in creating an otherworldly work of art that lasts for centuries for all of us to enjoy. They are looking at a bigger picture.

Oh ya, I hope everyone had a happy and safe Christmas holiday. I hope all of you, no matter how hectic the holiday season gets, gets a little time for themselves. Even to the point of painting some miniatures.

If you see the entire cathedral then you're good to go. If you never step back so that you can see what your "favorite stone" is part of, you are the one missing alot. Both perspectives are very satisfying. And they are not mutually exclusive.

Just because I go on about what Existence is (trying to step back, or deeper inside, both, neither, something else), doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the minutia of mortal life, including painting miniatures and racing slot cars and shooting guns and other less complicated pursuits.

Hectic, yes. I am about to go to a couple of resort houses next door to each other and spend the week till Saturday with the entire expanding family, now hovering a tad below thirty in number. We've never done this "under the same roof" thing since our children grew up. My nervous system is already in a state of mild shock anticipating it……………

10% satanists? You'd think the local metal shows would be better then :-)

If you see the entire cathedral then you're good to go. If you never step back so that you can see what your "favorite stone" is part of, you are the one missing alot.

I think the analogy is the cathedral is a scientific theory and the stone is one of many "facts" that bolsters the theory. If your job is to create the cathedral then the stones are only of interest within the context of constructing the building. Of course the analogy is flawed as cathedrals are not predictive as scientific theories are.

I have my extended family over (35+) at my house for a giant turkey and a goose. If you don't hear from me for a few days it may be because I'm recovering. Your whole family is staying at adjoining resort buildings? Cool.

I wondered at the time why she didn't add 5% of teens,5% of octogenerians,5% of. . ."Hey,we're all satanists!"