5 ms·

And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation, people can still argue about the best course of action t

by ksdale 6y ago

And then, assuming you can get people to agree on the accuracy of the observation and on the causation, people can still argue about the best course of action to address a problem. Assuming people don't agree on causation, you might never get enough trials of solutions to learn anything about what a best solution might look like.

xg15 6y ago
Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it. Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.
- ksdale 6y ago
  The comment I was replying to pointed out that accurate observations are indisputable facts. To paraphrase the next part, determining causation from observations can be a matter of fact (where you understand the mechanism of causation very well), or of deciding that we're satisfied that the experimentation we've done demonstrates causation (which is not at all the same thing as proving causation). We can also do something like offer a plausible mechanism for causation, which, while often useful, is not particularly close to a fact in the vein of the Earth orbiting the sun. You're obviously correct that belief doesn't make something a fact, but what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?
  - xg15 6y ago
    > what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it? Good point. This is definitely not trivial or easy - but this exactly the problem that empirical science has been developing tools for. Technically, a theory cannot be "proven" - at some point, there could always appear another Einstein and overturn everything - but there are still theories which stay consistent with all observations - i.e. "facts" - for an extensively long time. The standard model of physics is such an example: It's not "proven", but for decades any attempt to disprove it has failed and an enormous amount of working technology has been developed by assuming the model accurately reflects reality. In a similar way, a single study is probably not enough to make a new theory credible - however if the claims of the theory can be consistently reproduced in additional studies, this gives more justification to rely on it. (And more justification to be sceptical of critics)
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. No, it's actually the ENTIRE meaning of "fact". Because "fact" is a word, and it has no meaning if we don't agree.
  - xg15 6y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you elaborate?
- failuser 6y ago
  «Earth orbits the Sun» is not a very meaningful or scientific statement. «Frame of reference tied to the Sun is closer to an inertial one than the one tied to Earth» is better, but try explaining it to random person on Facebook.
  - xg15 6y ago
    What's wrong with "Earth orbits the sun"?
    - MagnumOpus 6y ago
      For nitpicky physicists, all objects in a system orbit each other, so the Earth as well as the sun and other planets orbit a common centre (which happens to be inside the sun). For more obtuse people, they might nitpick that the system should include the entire milky way (so the earth as well as the sun rotate around the centre of the galaxy).

by ksdale 6y ago

xg15 6y ago

Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. Earth will orbit the sun, no matter how many people may or may not be comfortable with it. Finding out what is and what is not a fact can be extremely difficult. However, we've spent the last few centuries developing tools to tackle this problem in the for of the scientific method.

ksdale 6y ago
The comment I was replying to pointed out that accurate observations are indisputable facts. To paraphrase the next part, determining causation from observations can be a matter of fact (where you understand the mechanism of causation very well), or of deciding that we're satisfied that the experimentation we've done demonstrates causation (which is not at all the same thing as proving causation). We can also do something like offer a plausible mechanism for causation, which, while often useful, is not particularly close to a fact in the vein of the Earth orbiting the sun. You're obviously correct that belief doesn't make something a fact, but what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it?
- xg15 6y ago
  > what to do when a fact hinges on a study? Who decides if the study is good enough? Obviously there is an objective truth, but is the study enough to find it? Good point. This is definitely not trivial or easy - but this exactly the problem that empirical science has been developing tools for. Technically, a theory cannot be "proven" - at some point, there could always appear another Einstein and overturn everything - but there are still theories which stay consistent with all observations - i.e. "facts" - for an extensively long time. The standard model of physics is such an example: It's not "proven", but for decades any attempt to disprove it has failed and an enormous amount of working technology has been developed by assuming the model accurately reflects reality. In a similar way, a single study is probably not enough to make a new theory credible - however if the claims of the theory can be consistently reproduced in additional studies, this gives more justification to rely on it. (And more justification to be sceptical of critics)
koheripbal 6y ago
> Whether or not people agree on something is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a fact. No, it's actually the ENTIRE meaning of "fact". Because "fact" is a word, and it has no meaning if we don't agree.
- xg15 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't get it. Could you elaborate?
failuser 6y ago
«Earth orbits the Sun» is not a very meaningful or scientific statement. «Frame of reference tied to the Sun is closer to an inertial one than the one tied to Earth» is better, but try explaining it to random person on Facebook.
- xg15 6y ago
  What's wrong with "Earth orbits the sun"?
  - MagnumOpus 6y ago
    For nitpicky physicists, all objects in a system orbit each other, so the Earth as well as the sun and other planets orbit a common centre (which happens to be inside the sun). For more obtuse people, they might nitpick that the system should include the entire milky way (so the earth as well as the sun rotate around the centre of the galaxy).