Scientific Fact

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4795755.stm

[i]It’s an indisputable, objective, proven by science fact that there are 9 planets in our solar system.

No, wait, shit we’ve seen some more. Ahhh… Erm… Okay, that fact that we’ve been telling you is a fact that’s scientifically proven and indisputable has turned out to be a bit more complicated, and now we’re going to come up with a semantic get-out clause to try to pretend that we were right all along in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.[/i]

My favourite part of the article was this:

I don’t see how renaming things that we already knew existed counts as a new discovery. In fact, it isn’t. It isn’t in any way, shape or form.

Don’t trust these people, they are lying to you.

2

Good catch, someone! What the …, rrr avatar.

What is a fact?
Facts are propositions that are capable of having sense and are true. Capable of having linguistic sense. That is, the words are clearly defined, are connected grammatically, and the proposition has a reference to the real world, as accepted by science. As accepted by science by a concensus of recognized experts.
Platonic facts
There are no facts independent of social convention, nor any that are independent of language that represents conventional concepts.
Beliefs
Beliefs are personal and subjective. Whether or not a person believes has no bearing on facts. Only on his personal knowledge of facts.

  1. Platonic facts never change, because they simply don’t exist in any sense. They are nonsensical.
  2. However, if language is revised, or the concensus of experts so rules, then facts change and the corresponding proposition is now true.
  3. We can conclude that there is no such thing as absolute Platonic Truth. Only truth that is relative to social conventions.
    …

For example, the “real” shape of the Earth" is a reification of a nonsensical Platonic “fact”.

Without the human mind AND social conventions, there are no objects, there are no shapes.

What is a shape?
A shape is a geometric figure that is a mathematical, conceptual abstraction.
What is the shape of the Earth?
Whatever qualified experts say it is. So, the Earth truly used to be flat. Then the Earth truly used to be round. Then it became geodesic, flattened at the poles, bulging at the equator.
Note that each one is just a refinement, and each depends on the observer and on the precision of the observation. None corresponds exactly to the seas, the mountains, the cities, the roads, the gardens, the trees, the pebbles, and so on to a quantum level. A reasonable choice MUST be made, and it is made by social convention.
…

The IAU convention is a meeting of experts to make the meaning of the word “planet” more precise. There used to be 7 naked-eye planets in classical times, including the Moon and the Sun. After Copernicus there were just 6, including the Earth. Then telescopes raised the number to 9.
With Chiron, now to 10. Oops, or it only 8 after they ban Pluto?

3

Where did you get that first statement?

And it was a fact, insofar as we had defined planet (a fairly insignificant thing within the field of astronomy).

We agree on conventions, as we get more data, we re-evaluate said conventions. That is how understanding grows.

Would you rather there be no understanding?

4

Thanks for your comment, Xunzian.

I am not objecting to science. I am just doing new philosophy. Do you see any flaws in the assumptions or the arguments? Do you know of any science, whatsoever, that does not conform to my schema?

Facts are propositions that are capable of having sense and are true. Capable of having linguistic sense. That is, the words are clearly defined, are connected grammatically, and the proposition has a reference to the real world, as accepted by science. As accepted by science by a concensus of recognized experts.

This definition is an extension of Wittgenstein’s reduction of formal propositions to those that are capable of having truth value (sense) by reference to concepts that are expressed through language.

Language is purely cultural. So are concepts. Meaning is so sidestepped, or defined if you like. Meaning is not a Platonic intuition, but a cultural construct. (I do distinguish social present and cultural past. Here, cultural is more precise)

5

The problem with saying that science is a purely cultural construct is that it doesn’t hold up.

While the ball-and-stick diagrams I use to demonstrate how a beta-lactam block bacterial cell wall formation is a cultural construct, the action of the beta-lactam is not. We could originally observe (objectively) the bacterial population being reduced by these compounds. Then, with physical chemistry we could elucidate the structure of the beta-lactam (which we then represented through a cultural construct). Then, with X-ray crystallography, we could observe that in the presence of beta-lactams, the crosslinking of the mucosaccharides did not occur. Next, because of our cultural representations, we could observe that the beta-lactam structure resembled the shape of the polypeptide used in the crosslinking reaction. Then, once again, through X-ray crystallography, we could observe that the enzyme responsible for the crosslinking reaction did, indeed, bind the beta-lactams and through various enzyme kinetics experiments, we could observe that the enzyme bound the beta-lactams with a higher degree of affinity than the original polypeptide.

Now, you can say that my ball-and-stick drawings are not the real molecule, I agree. You can say that my ball-and-stick drawings aren’t even a true representation of the real molecule. But you can’t say that my ball-and-stick drawings don’t let me accurately predict the mechanism of action of the molecule as observed by direct means. You cannot say that the molecule does not work. That is the point of science.

The sematics at this point become everything. When I say it is a scientific fact, I mean that it has 1) been observed repeatedly by the scientific community and 2) it works. Now, this is distinct from a ‘fact’ if you want to define ‘fact’ as an absolute representation of Truth. Science isn’t about Truth, it is about what works. Now, as a scientist, I believe that if something works it is a model of the Truth, but if you mistake the model for the actuality, well, you’ve got a problem.

To say the Earth is flat is an adequate model for short distances. If I throw a ball (or a spear) at you, over those distances the curvature of the Earth doesn’t play any role in my calculations. To say the Earth is a sphere is adequate for longer distances and it greatly simplifies calculations like rotational speed. To say the Earth is geodesic it allows for calculations over distances further still, as well as more accurate calculations wrt rotational speed and it introduces the ability to calculate ‘wobble’.
Now, all of these are models that reflect the actual shape of the Earth and for their task, they are sufficient.

Also, I take issue with the assertion that all facts are human constructs. Even if there were no observers, a beta-lactam would still inhibit mucosaccharide crosslinking. Before anyone observed Mars, it had the shape it does now (within reason, discounting things like erosion, ect.).

Now, that is an article of faith, but I see no reason not to believe it. There have been no instances where induction has been conclusively shown (models have changed, what the models reflect has not), so in my mind it is as foolish to believe in the possibility that reality is contingent upon an observer as it is to believe in a Divinity. Sure, there is no strong evidence against it, but at the same time, it is absurd and, above all, not useful.

6

Thank you for your interesting comment.

Almost all physical scientists are realists who believe that there is a real world out there that science is probing in its attempt to give a description. There is a division between the theorists and the experimentalists.

Many theorists go along with Plato that their models are the true reality, and the experiments merely probe imperfect instances.

Experimentalists are Aristotelian realists, in that they believe that the instances they sample are all there is, and theory is just a model, just as the stick and ball representations are.

My representation, a Kantian realism also says that there is something out there, but that something is a fundamentally unknowable existence, that presents aspects of itself to the observer, which the observer calls real. So the observer is an essential part of this picture. The observer does not need to be human. It can be an animal, a plant, any physical body, a molecule, or a fundamental particle. Observation is the same as physical interaction.

This view of reality is consistent with Kant, but also with quantum mechanics. So I did not invent it.

For example, your x-ray crystallography interacts with molecules in the x-ray spectrum. It is the observer, and presents its reality for your inspection. If you used an Atomic Field Microscope, it wold present you with yet a different, atomic reality of the identical subject. Both are equally real, but are different.

Question - by “cultural construct” do you mean cell culture or theoretical construct?

7

By ‘cultural construct’ I mean a societal construct, made by people.

The ball-and-stick diagram I have is a cultural construct, but it represents the reality of the molecule I am drawing with enough accuracy for me to accurately deduce its function, which can then be proven through direct observation.

So, this is reality, a direct observation of DNA.

This is the model we derive from that observation (as well as several others):

As for the observer effect, wrt Quantum – yes, I can agree there. In your original post it seemed much more agnostic wrt Truth than Kantian realism/Quantum. While I disagree that there is a fundamentally unknowable aspect, I do agree that it is presently not known so functionally our thinking is quite similar. Experiments demonstrate individual aspects of that reality, while theories outline that reality. As our experiments improve, so too does out understanding of reality (we get better theories).

I would take issue with your distinction between experimentalists and theorists. As a biological scientist, I would be curious as to where you drew such distinctions. Most scientists I know are between those two extremes.

8

I stand corrected. By theorists I just circle around applied mathematicians in physics, including historical people like Einstein and Godel.

The Rosalind Franklin cross. There is great beauty in natural patterns that is hard not to appreciate. It is even harder to understand how that simplicity produces such profound complexity. Even the entire human dna is simple compared to its product.

Perhaps the great unknown (Kantian noumena) can be defined as the flow of patterns (states) over time. If space and time are not too much to assume.

There is no Truth in nature with a capital T. But for each subdiscipline, as defined by observational methods, instruments, theoretical concepts, and terminology, there are true propositions. These are “facts”.

In biology, evolution is a fact. In geology, evolution is a fact, in cosmology, evolution is a fact. In anthropology cultural evolution is a fact.
But these are all different facts, based on a single overriding principal of cumulative complexity that could be called progress.

For property surveyors, land is flat.
For global surveyors the Earth is round.
To a sunbather the Sun is gentle, and warming.
To a casual observer the Sun is round.
To an astronomer, the Sun is teardrop shaped, is about a lightyear in diameter from heliopause to heliopause, and it encloses the entire solar system.
In soft X-ray, the Sun is a turbulent cloud of plasma.

9

At least one of the three, ‘the tenth planet’ ( 2003 UB313 ) was not known to exist before and was discovered/announced only in 2005.

From Wikipedia:

10

Announcing the existence of planets that we’ve already discovered (and then renaming our interpretation of them) does not in any way make discovering new planets more likely, or possible where it was not before. This is typical scientific nonsense - the presumption of progress and all the rest. If one only looks at empirical data then one is limiting one’s inquiry to such an extent that any claim to fact is nothing more than an absurd assertion. It’s no coincidence that science became the world’s premier knowledge form at the same time as industrial capitalism was really taking off.

11

Without trust, I have nothing at all.

It’s a strange state.

12

Since we didn’t actually have a cohesive definition of planet before, what do you expect?

The planets were the planets because they had each, individually, been defined as such. When they find a new object that is similar to the other objects thusfar deemed ‘planet’ what are they to do? And so the debate ensues.

Is the British Government non-existant because of the way it operates?

13

This is not a scientific but a philosophical problem. Scientists are happier naming things 2003 UB313 than “planet”. Planets are strictly for the consumption of the Aristotelian world of enthusiastic public relations and federal funding. Without such effort, nonscientists are incapable of keeping track of the rapidly increasing gap in knowledge.

If you were a post-Kantian realist from some other galaxy, seeing the solar system for the first time, you might decide that there are 5 rocky inner planets including the Earth-Moon double planet, 4 gas giants, and numerous icey planetary bodies like Pluto, Charon, and 2003 UB313. All of them planetary.

14

Hmm. I believe the contrary. Capitalism, although in one sense is defined by marxist theorists as a legitimate economic system, is in the other sense, and will always be, an experiment.

The ethical principles which uphold the value system of capitalism are in no way derived from scientific analysis because they are moral issues, and moral issues are not scientific when they involve subjectivisms. They are metaphysics; the question “what is the good life” is not a scientific question, while economy is a scientific issue.

I can say that a man hurts, and call it a scientific fact, but I cannot say that that is “bad.” It is the hurting that is produced by capitalism that cannot be justified by the principles of capitalism, rather, the pain is excused as a necessary social structure of the system while at the same time the system advocates itself to be an opportunity to escape those conditions. Bologna.

The fact is that as soon as you have an argument between two or more people concerning evaluations, you move outside of the field of science and into ethics.

A fact, whether you want to call it a fact or not, is that the “capitalist” is absolutely useless in an economic system, scientifically speaking. We are talking about functions and laws of production, not evaluations. Bob might be a swell guy (subjective evaluation) but he’s a parasite at work (scientific fact).

So I wouldn’t say that the paradigm of science is what founded capitalism. Instead I would say, like Rosa, that it was through the disintegration of science and the evolution of ruling class language, ideas, and moral values of a “philosophical” nature (sophistry) that dumbed the world down and set the stage.

15

come on siatd… we’re argueing semantics here :stuck_out_tongue:

16

Hi SIATD,
Nice way of confusing facts and science and classification.
The existence of nine planets started right after we discovered that there were not eight of something we called planet. Planet is not a fact but a classification or categorization of stellar objects.

Otherwise it is funny how smart people can say stupid things.
You should call and ask him to join us.
Press Room +420-261-177-075. Richard Binzel

17

Well, in that it is historically contingent, yes. I don’t really know what you mean by ‘experiment’.

I hate to break this to you, but the entirety of scientific discourse is based on subjective observations, hence is exactly the same material as ethics.

Science is metaphysics, or at least relies on metaphysics. Your distinction is nonsensical, albeit useful.

And in doing so you’d be committing yourself to an ethics (of favouring scientific descriptions over others).

All based on a false distinction.

Scientists argue concerning evaluations. Hell, science argues with other knowledge form concerning evaluations. I haven’t a clue why you’re insisting on a rigid distinction between science on the one hand and ethics/metaphysics on the other.

Assertions, based on a false distinction.

Nor would I. Nor did I.

People were thick long before capitalism. And what ‘disintegration’ of science are you talking about?

18

saitd - as this seems to be my day to disagree with you, I shall. Science studies phenomena that can be at least potentially verified (or denied) by direct observation - can be verified experientially - in the end, by the senses. Ethics does not. Acts under consideration by ethics can be verified, but not ethical statements about those acts. Science assumes that the external world, the empirical world, is accessible by the senses. Even theoretical physics has this as a basis. Ethics assumes that wholly abstract ideas have meaning - ideas, that is, that have no experiential referent. Science assumes that abstract ideas have a basis in concrete, “real” phenomena. Morality depends upon society - the eixstence of experiential phenomena does not.

Only at the “level” (your favorite expression, used here solely to piss you off - rise above, my friend) that “everything” is subjective are they the same. But the notion that “everything” is anything, subjective or not, is metaphysical - it does not describe the empirical world, but describes the world as being anything but empirical.

Everything is metaphysical to a metaphysician. But that is to assume only that context, that paradigm. Yours is a self-defining proposition - it says nothing about another view. Logical positivists, for instance, make a distinction between the phsyical (real) and metaphysical on the level of language - in other words, there is a context for their view that is shared by every thinker - language.

19

Yep, assertion, induction, prediction. Science works as much for facts as it does for personal interests.

20

kesh - while that is true in one sense, we can make the distinction between motive and method. Science “does” nothing, strictly speaking - scientists do.