»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Are facts right?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Are facts right? |
|
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
Ok quick question, Okay if something is sciencifly proven or a known fact, does that always mean its completely true, And can you be sure? ~FKA Maria Byrne~ |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Moon Dust - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Talk about a quagmire of semantics!  Is 2+2=4 a fact? Yes. Is it true? Yes. Is it completely true? Probably not. Is Relativity a fact? No, it's a theory. Is it true? Yes, or at least it's probably as true as 2+2=4. Is it completely true? Probably not. Is the life of Christopher Columbus a fact? Yes. Is it true? That he lived is almost certainly true. Is it completely true? The incidents surrounding his life are almost certainly not completely true. Can I be sure of any of this? I can be sure enough to live my life and base most of my decisions on the things I "know" to be true. Doesn't mean I'll always be right. Doesn't mean I won't change my stance on known facts later, perhaps when more evidence is offered. It simply means I can be "sure" enough to act with at least some degree of confidence. The alternative is to wait for "proof," and in waiting, do nothing. BTW, I would submit that "completely true" is an oxymoron.  |
||
|
Colin Senior Member
since 1999-06-05
Posts 596Callington, Cornwall, England |
If something is "scientifically proven" using a scientific technique or apparatus that is in itself flawed, then the so called proof will also be flawed, rendering the fact fiction. Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. - Bill Vaughan |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Maybe I'm more simple-minded than some of you other philosophers out there, but I cannot see for one nanosecond, any shred of evidence that 2+2=4 (and other similar mathematical axioms) is not absolutely true (at least in a numerical sense). It has proven true without exception ever since people began thinking in terms of "math" (and even before). To answer the question "Is something completely (or absolutely) true", we must first inquire what the specific statement is claiming to be true about. The statement that 2+2=4 is statement of truth in the numerical realm... it has nothing to do with any variations you might want to throw in there with a polemic mind, such as the possiblity of the units being reproductive in nature so that 2+2= maybe 5 or 6, or units being transitory or mortal, so that 2+2 = maybe 3. Sticking to naked numerics and what the mathematical definitions of the words "add" and "equal" are, such mathematical statements are "completely" true, since they completely fulfill their obligations in the boundaries of what they claimed. You must remember the above example is a purely mathematical statement, and as such it is mathematically completely true. You can grandize metaphysical imagination and speculation all you want about possible worlds and other realities where 2+2 may equal 5, but it doesn't change anything and never has. Why not take statements in the context of what they are saying. 2+2=4 never claimed to be completely true in the sense of "the complete and whole of ultimate truth...(which I do believe in by the way)" but only claims to be wholly true in a mathematical sense, which it is. The deeper question you may be getting at seems to be along the lines of Brad's thread titled "a different cosmological view" where we have been discussing the question, can anything be know with absolute certainty. I would say yes to this, but that thread already addresses this issue, and do we really want to start that up again? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
And lest we forget, there is that persnickety word: synergism, where the combined effects of two or more separate items are greater than the individual sums. In such a case, 1 + 1 = 3, as with, say, analgesics (sp?) such as Tylenol (being one) and alcohol (being two). By themselves they have effects. Combine them and the individual effects are heightened. Synergism. Then there is the mathematical/philosophical argument that the actual number represented, like 2, is a rounded figure of a longer sum, like 2.3. So, taking this into consideration, 2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6, rounded to 5. But I digress. Fact is fact as long as people believe it to be fact. Our paper/cloth money has value only because we believe it has value. Gravity is a fact, but not in certain circumstances, where that fact is null. Facts are set on predetermined conditions, and can only exist so long as those conditions are maintained. When such ceases to be, fact becomes fiction, like Hollow Earth, or the 'science' of phrenology. But from what I've seen in this popular mediaistic culture, fact = factoid = tabloid = fact. Strange but true. Alicat “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Alicat, since you brought in the example of decimals such as 2.3, I'll further clarify my former (or Ron's) completely true mathematical statement... 2.0 + 2.0 = 4.0 And you proved my point exactly by bringing "synergy" into the discussion... A biological or chemical term. Remember that 2.0+2.0=4.0 only boasts that it's assertions are absolutely true in the realm of mathematics. The example of Tylenol and alchohol is a chemical reaction, and surely involves some completely true statements in the realm of chemistry, but won't support these misapplied laws of math. (and laws of chemistry and math never really claimed too be able to do that anyway). I still don't see that any of these examples prove that things cannot be completely true. Are facts really fact as long as people believe that they are fact?... hmmm... What about the example of the "flat earth" belief, when virtually the whole population of the world believed the assumption that the earth was flat...or what about when the scientific world thought that "atoms" were made up of smaller solid particles rather than positive/ negative charges. Only when what was objectively true was discovered were people's thinking corrected. And I assert that no matter that the world's population thought the earth to be flat, it was still round without their consent. Does this mean that humankind's knowledge of the earth was "complete" when they discovered this? No. But the statement about it's general shape was true in the context of what it claimed.... the overall shape of our planet... and may I add completely true. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 02-25-2001).] |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
The earth is round? Like a billiard ball? Hmmm....I always thought that to be a conspiracy of cartographers.  In all seriousness, if such can ever be a true and valid mental state with me, I always thought the earth was a bit more oblong...not like a football or anything, but not completely spherical. Data, or facts granted us from ariel and space photos do indeed portray the earth in a cyclical nature....but only one side. An egg, when viewed from a certain angle, is round, and completely spherical, although the entire object is more oblong. It's all a matter of perspective. And though we used different language, I believe, and feel free to correct me if wrong, that we are basically saying the same thing.  Alicat, the persnickety Persnikitty “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” Charles Darwin [This message has been edited by Alicat (edited 02-25-2001).] |
||
|
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
So I guess what your saying is that a fact can be true at one point, but something can change that to make it not true anymore. On the other hand where as things like numbers and math or even alpha is based on an idea that the whole world would understand and learned could not be changed, yet it's open to new ideas and maybe new equations. Like Ron's example christoper Columbus. In his life time sure he was a fact. Then as time goes on, maybe people started questioning that he was a fact and then I'm talking years from now when the world has probably lost history to even this time. people may eventully say he's fiction, when theres no evidence left to back him up. To sum up i'm saying that any kind of fact like in history or mathimathical may end up becomeing fiction as time moves on. And seems to me, a fact is in the mind of a beliver. BTW if 2 is alcohol i'm starting to like that number. ~FKA Maria Byrne~ |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
And it is abundantly clear from this thread why the results of scientific methodology carry so little weight in this society. "Everything is just an opinion!", which of course is a crock. But who cares? And who needs facts anyway, they're never good enough are they? Eat, drink and be merry . . . (Oh, we can't act on that, we need more research . . . and oh, by the way, lets cut the science research budget, it's too fat, said a certain US Pres.) [This message has been edited by Krawdad (edited 02-25-2001).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephanos, I still maintain that "completely true" is an oxymoron. Allow me to divide by zero and I'll gladly offer sound mathematical proof that 2+2=5 - or any other desirable quantity. Maria, I think you misunderstood the point of my closing argument. Yes, facts can be become untrue under very unusual, very bizarre circumstances. That has little to do with the passage of time, however. Forgetting Columbus won't negate his existence and finding more complete answers doesn't alter the truth of older ones. But more importantly, and my whole point, was that to base our life on the possible transitory nature of truth robs us of a standard upon which to make decisions. We NEED facts, we need absolutes. And I can guarantee you, when I pay my bills on the first of the month, I'm going to assume 2+2 still equals 4. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, well, well look what happened while I was sleeping. Trying to leave me out of this one? If you believe "everything is just an opinion" (I guess by this, one is saying that all opinions are equally valid)or "fact is fiction", you render the ability to make decisions useless including asserting those same opinions. Nobody does this. Nobody can do this. If all facts are in the mind, where does the mind come from? How in the world does a reality we agree on, an agreement on pragmatic usefulness, necessitate absolute and absolute truth? We base our decisions on ontological viewpoints (what we know), not epistemological certainties (how we know what we know). Why can't we separate the two? Brad |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Alicat, To be more accurate or precise, I guess the earth was discovered to be ellipsoidal...(characteristic of an object with a geometric surface whose plane sections are all either ellipses or circles). This definition will account and allow for the oblong shape and irregularities of our imperfect globe. You are right, it is not spherical. But whenever we travel on it in a straight line (assuming we don't dig through it...can't do that yet! ouch!) we always travel in a fairly consistent curvature, and end up back around where we came from! .... and to touch on one thing you said earlier..."Gravity is a fact, but not in certain circumstances, where that fact is null. Facts are set on predetermined conditions, and can only exist so long as those conditions are maintained. When such ceases to be, fact becomes fiction, like Hollow Earth, or the 'science' of phrenology." - I still assert that gravity is a fact at all times and in all physical circumstances involving objects with mass. There is never such a circumstance where gravity is "null". It may seem null, but every object with physical mass (even the smallest) has some measure of gravity. I know that there are different expressions of how it works such as Newtonian physics which describe it as a "pull" on other objects, or Relativity which describes it as being a curvature in the actual space surrounding objects having mass, causing other objects to take the path of least resistance, but it is well established to be a characteristic fact of all objects with any mass. So if there is any circumstance where gravity is inoperative, it would be inoperative because of it's definition of being characteristic of physical mass...ie, whatever circumstance where gravity doesn't work would have to exclude any objects having mass. So maybe it's on pause, or somewhere else, or out to lunch, but never "false". At least I don't see how it could be. Such an axiom as gravity is pretty established in contrast to "Hollow Earth" or "phrenology " which I don't know much about but assume they are spurious examples of those all too common pseudo-sciences we hear of. (But please don't misunderstand me, I don't accept every assertion of modern science as true, but I honestly think she has established a lot of things with certainty) moon dust, I wasn't exactly saying "that a fact can be true at one point, but something can change that to make it not true anymore." Though I am maybe saying something close to that. A mathematical fact such as (since we have been fond of this simplistic example) 2.0 + 2.0 = 4.0 is completely true in the context of mathematics...if we take at face value of what the statement says. It merely says numerically speaking, that two of anything added to two more of the same will equal four of them. This is true without fail...if anyone doesn't think so, show me an example. However, we see the results of the equation change when other variables are added in. For example if you want to sneak in the biological factor of reproduction into the equation with two rabbits in a cage, 1+1 may not equal 2. But it would all have to be factored into the equation in order to provide a true representation of what's going on. It might end up being something like this: define variables... and what numbers refer to... numbers = rabbits a = male gametes b = female gametes x = number of zygotes (or baby rabbits) m = number of successful matings if a + b = x then (1+a) + (1+b) = (2+x)m Of course this equation could probably be set up differently, and it could get alot more complex ( I put them in a cage merely to make this more simple), but as you can see this doesn't change the mathematical assertion of 1+1=2, it simply introduces variables which affect the equation rather than making it untrue. {I'm a shakey mathematician, so the above equation is probably wrongly expressed in many ways...I'm waiting for you guys to shred it before my eyes LOL} And no amount of lost historical data, forgetfulness, or inaccuracies can change the fact that Christopher Columbus was born, lived, and died, and did and thought, certain things and not others... Are we absolutely factual in our historical accounts of Columbus? that's doubtful, but apart from our historical observations is a life that was lived regardless of how we now view it, or even if we acknowledge it at all. A fact is not contingent on human observation. If it were, we would have to say (for example) that other planets didn't exist until we discovered them... Remember that the "fact" we came to understand when we discovered Pluto was not merely that it exists presently, but that it existed quite a long time before we ever knew about it, (actually before humanity existed)... so it's useless to say that the definition of a fact is something established to human consciousness... If this is what "fact" means, or what some insist that it means, maybe a new word ought to be invented for what a fact was before it was discovered, because discovery of something is certainly not the creation of it. Ron, I fail to see how the absurdity of dividing any number by zero, can imply that 2+2=4 may not be true. Maybe when you say to me "allow me to divide by zero", you are saying something akin to "allow me to draw me an octagon with only three sides". What do the existence of absurdities have to do with established non-absurdities? Maybe you could enlighten me here. Brad, Again you state that "We base our decisions on ontological viewpoints (what we know), not epistemological certainties (how we know what we know)." But I (as well as many others) disagree here... It's an epistemological debate involving two opposing views about "the nature of knowledge". Some like you seem to assert that the nature of knowledge is purely pragmatic, while others like myself believe that true knowledge (though discovered through practical means except in instances of direct communication from the absolute God) is revelatory in nature. It was merely hidden for us to find. But here we are again at our point of disagreement in your post "A different Cosmological view". I'd really prefer to continue there instead of starting the whole thing over again here, so forgive me if I've done exactly what I say I'd rather not do... But trying to separate "what we know" from "how we know" seems to me like cutting a fruitful branch from a tree (the source). Yes you may enjoy fruit from it for a time, but severed from the root, the fruits are only transitory. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 02-26-2001).] |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Heh...yanno Stephanos, for some reason, I'm reminded of an old Kipsigis phrase, 'Mala chum chum chala.' It translates roughly to 'words cross', i.e. we are saying close to the same thing, but somehow we keep misunderstading each other. As for my statement of Gravity, which was an illustration, allow me to expound: Under set and certain circumstances, the law of gravity is temporarily rescinded, such as when zero-gravity conditions are met inside high altitude aircraft for astronaut training. And in the case of centrifigal force, gravity is actually increased for an object with a given mass. (Perhaps the words 'null' and 'false' were a tad too strong...) Another case would be with bouyancy. Can it be said that the hard and fast rule that all things fall down still applies to a body in water? Some things may sink to the bottom, true. But others may not, due to water pressure, air pockets, body fat, etc. Or would this example be null, owing to the initial weight of water, compounded by mass, area and depth? (Or indeed a non-sequitor?) Sometimes, and this was what I was attempting to put across the first time, the physical laws or facts about gravity are null under certain special conditions. When those conditions are no longer met, the originating facts are reasserted. That is what I meant. Facts are facts until the conditions which prove them to be cease to exist. Flat earth was a fact, until it was disproved. Phrenology (the science of divining a person's personality, aims, goals, fears, etc. based upon the bumps and contour of the human head) was considered factual, until it was debunked. Maintaining conditions could be anything from belief, rational/irrational thought, observational conclusions, random serendipity, dreams, perspective...anything. For ages, the sun was thought to rotate around a fixed and stationary earth, based on accumulated observational evidence at the time, and Copernicus was a loon. Over time, his conclusions were vindicated, at least from our perspective. The truth is indeed out there, but lies are inside our heads. Alicat |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There was a time, Stephanos, when the whole concept of zero was considered an absurdity. The ancient Egyptians, in spite of their prodigious engineering feats, never used a zero symbol in writing their numerals. Nor did the early Greeks, from whom comes much of our mathematical system. We all know the Roman numeral for 5, right? And for 10? Quickly now, what is the Roman numeral for zero? The idea of zero as a "number" didn't really gain a strong foothold until around the Twelfth Century, because of the conceptual difficulty that zero is something that must be there in order to say that nothing is there. The history of mathematics is filled with absurdities that eventually found a use, from zero to negative numbers to imaginary ones. In the mid-Nineteenth Century, there were very prominent scientists who publicly decried that there were no more discoveries to be made. We knew all the science there was to know. Today, I think there is a tendency to believe the same thing about our mathematical system. Of course, the immediate rejoinder should be that zero, negative numbers, and imaginary ones are all reflections of reality. They are no longer considered absurd, because we have discovered real world phenomenon that can only be mathematically described by their use. Can the same be said of division by zero? The Lorentz Transformations played an integral part in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and consistently included a divisor of the form (1 - v/C), where v is velocity and C the speed of light in a vacuum (I'm grossly simplifying, but it doesn't change the math or the results). As v increases, the term v/C gets closer and closer to Unity, and since we're subtracting from Unity, we get a smaller and smaller divisor. It is this pattern that exactly describes time dilation and mass increases at relativistic speeds, things that have been shown perfectly accurate in particle accelerators. There is no doubt in any scientific mind that these equations describe real world phenomenon. What happens when v reaches the speed of light? If v equals C, our term becomes (1 - C/C) or (1-1) or a big fat zero. We can't divide by zero, and that is why nothing with mass can ever travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Or can it? Einstein also demonstrated (in the General Theory, this time) the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. His classic thought experiment (which eventually resulted in some serious heavy-duty math) centered around a man in an elevator. If the elevator is suspended over a large mass, let's say Earth, the man will feel himself "pulled" towards the floor, much as we are pulled towards the surface of the planet. But if the elevator was instead accelerated through space, the man would feel exactly the same sensation. Mathematically AND in real life, there is no difference between gravity and acceleration. Enter black holes, so named because they represent a gravitational field so intense that even light cannot escape. But if gravity and acceleration are equivalent, it is equally valid to say the gravity well is accelerating the photons at a speed that exceeds their own integral velocity. They - and everything else caught in the well - are travelling faster than the speed of light. We are dividing by zero. Division by zero has three possible answers. The first, of course, is that it's not possible, and that's pretty much what we've all be taught. The second is that division by zero equals infinity. As you divide by smaller and smaller fractions, the result gets larger and larger, so it seems logical to assume dividing by the smallest possible quantity - zero - should result in the largest possible quantity - infinity. This was the interpretation Einstein used when he submitted that traveling at C would result in infinite mass. But there is a third possible interpretation, suggested I think by the simple ease in proving that 2+2=5 when division by zero is allowed. Instead of suggesting that traveling at the speed of light results in infinite mass, this interpretations says that travelling at the speed of light results in mass of infinite possibilities. When you allow division by zero, 2+2 can equal 5 - or 7, or 110, or any other number you want it to equal. That's not the same, though, as saying it equals all of them. This is the interpretation Stephen Hawking held when he said, "If you stand by a black hole long enough, a dragon will be seen to exit." (paraphrased). I wrote a short story once where I called this the "God Effect." Our most eminent physicist, Hawking, rather strongly suggests that the application of enough energy - as can be found in a black hole - can result in effectively dividing by zero. Keep in mind that there's not enough combined energy in our entire solar system to form a black hole and you get some idea of the massive amounts required. But it can happen. Many astrological observations suggest we've seen it happen, albeit indirectly. Now, imagine for moment, that "someone" knew how to divide by zero and control the infinite possibilities. If 2+2=5, turning water into wine should be pretty simple. I submit that division by zero is only absurd if you're willing to deny the existence of supernatural phenomenon. (p.s. Apply enough energy, Stephanos, as existed in the first few milliseconds of the big bang, and even gravity ceases to have any meaning. "Completely true" is an oxymoron. ) |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: You missed one ... MS Excel tells me that anything divided by zero = #DIV/0!  Moon Dust: Facts are either events that have occurred or circumstances that exist ... their actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence (scientific, historical, or whatever). My own rule of thumb is to never get too attached to one particular interpretation of the facts ... all it takes is one Detective Columbo to throw a new fact into the mix to mess things up for you. Jim |
||
|
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
Stephanos & Ron - I'm sorry I should have worded that better. I know what you saying, but that was kind of my opinion using your examples. See I know opinions don't have to be fiction and fact don't have to be true. It's just hard to trust this world with facts. And I don't think you should soley Rely on facts but opinions as well. And I have a flaw cos I rely too much on opinion and not enough fact. Jim - i'll try that Krawdad - Thats what I mean but like I said before i'm not saying all facts are fiction some are and some change. But you know have a kinda balance of opinon and fact. Ali - thats the point I was trying to make how do we actully know its completely true untill someone comes along and proves us wrong. Or how do we know if the the new fact is true, we don't. Brad - Yep I'm guity of beliving opinion over fact but I dont discount fact completely. And I think that you should not just fill your head with facts, cos a fact was an opinion at one time. And I want to know how we know because that vaidates the fact. I guess i'm not looking for absolute truth but maybe some truth that will help me understand and put a little trust in whoever stated the fact. ~FKA Maria Byrne~ [This message has been edited by Moon Dust (edited 02-26-2001).] |
||
|
Ryan Member
since 1999-06-10
Posts 297Kansas |
I just wanted to make a quick comment/query to your comments Ron. I was once presented with an equation that when simplified, showed 0 = 1. I had to figure out why this was so. It ended up that when simplifying, you divided by zero (this wasn't obvious b/c instead of using numbers, it had to variable, a and b). I really wish I could remember the equation, but I can't. Ron, your comments brought that back to mind, so I was wondering if you'd ever heard of it. That's, all. Interesting discussion, but I don't have near the time to get involved. Too bad, it'd be fun. Ryan "ah, little girls make shadows on the sidewalk shorter than the shadow of death in this town--" - Jack Kerouac |
||
|
Colin Senior Member
since 1999-06-05
Posts 596Callington, Cornwall, England |
Ron, when paying bills, 2 + 2 = 4 + bank charges  Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. - Bill Vaughan |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
See? 2 + 2 = 5 or 4x where x equals the added variable of bank charges.  Alicat has once more been vindicated!!! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jim, the cool thing about Excel is that you can use VBA to easily change that result. And I usually do. Maria, the only way to be sure of a fact is to spend the time understanding how it was derived. Unfortunately, as fun as that can be, life is far too short to be sure of very many things. So, instead, we learn to trust based on the source. If I see a new fact in Scientific America, my level of trust is usually pretty high. On the other hand, if I see a new fact in National Enquirer, my level of trust is pretty low. In neither case, will my trust be perfect. Ryan, that's a very common mistake. a*a - a*a = a^2 - a^2 which can be rewritten as: a(a-a) = (a-a)(a+a) dividing both side by (a-a) gives a = 2a which gives 1 = 2 When the results are so outlandish, you know it's wrong, and any experienced teacher will know where to look. Sometimes, however, the results aren't so outlandish. In 9th grade geometry, I did a seven page proof trisecting an arc - which was patently impossible. But the proof "looked" perfect, and the teacher claimed it took him seven long hours to find my division by zero. It was shortly after that, I think, that he stopped offering extra-credit assignments. Colin, Ali - I don't pay bank charges. But if you wanna go that route, there's always the difference between inflation and interest, which everyone pays. So it's 2+2 = 4 - interest + inflation. But that's not math, it's just Life. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Uh, Ron, "Many astrological observations suggest we've seen it happen, albeit indirectly." Isn't it astronomical? Or was this intended on purpose? Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Definitely not intentional, Brad. I can only imagine I was stuck in that National Enquirer mode. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
