5 ms·

In philosophy of sciences, it is known that every fact is a fact of some or another theory. That's what "theory-laden" facts are. When some or another claim is

In philosophy of sciences, it is known that every fact is a fact of some or another theory. That's what "theory-laden" facts are. When some or another claim is not under dispute, such a theoretical claim is accepted as a fact. We accept many theories, whose theoretical claims have attained the status of facts. Same thing happens when it comes to newspapers, journalists: whatever they present as facts are facts of a certain of way of describing an event/process/slice of the world. As long as such descriptions are accepted, facts of those descriptions(theories) reach the status of facts: when someone disputes these descriptions, he is branded as extremist/conspiracy theorist/right wing/labels that many find abhorrent.

globalnode 3y ago
agree, and then we get into the world of combative self interest, its hard to move forward to a solution when so much energy is spent trying to undermine one's opponent -- I did like your description of theory-laden facts though, so thats what they were trying to teach me in science 101 :)
- raincom 3y ago
  You may find these interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22theory-laden%22 https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22theor...
adamredwoods 3y ago
>> when someone disputes these descriptions, he is branded as extremist/conspiracy theorist/right wing/labels that many find abhorrent Not always true. The goal of facts is to create trust and order. So when disputing "facts", it will initially cause chaos and disorder. Additionally, challenging a "fact" should come with reasoning (usually through the scientific method), and not an unresearched response. For example, flat-earthers deny a fact, yet offer no research. In such a case, a derogatory label is provided. https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/ https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
- raincom 3y ago
  There is no such thing as "scientific method". Only school boy conception of science espouses such a view that there is a scientific method. What we have are a set of heuristics learned from the history of natural sciences. These heuristics function as guard rails: for instance, a theory that is postulated to explain already-collected facts is ad hoc; a theory should solve new problems; a theory should solve predict novel 'facts'; do not increase theoretical entities unnecessarily; do not try to explain away by postulating various sub-entities; do not confuse a description with a phenomenon; save the phenomena; etc. When you or I drive/walk, what do we experience: flat earth, of course. In other words, both flat-earthers and spherical-earthers experience the same. Further, flat-earthers reason that if the earth were to be round, one would fall off of the surface of the earth on a sea/land travel. Since such an incident never occured, flat-earthers reason that the earth can't be spherical. Flat-earthers reasoning is not spurious, they are entirely reasonable. How to help them, you have to make them pilots and fly at 50000 feet, and they can experience the sphericalness of the earth directly. In other words, you can't transfer knowledge via authority. That's why there are disputes about what sciences are? Are sciences reduced to a set of theories, or just experiments, both theories and experiments? What happens when one theory gets supplanted by another, better theory? These are deeper questions about knowledge. When I am sick, I trust some or doctor about his knowledge to diagnose. In some cases, even patients start doing research on their own (you can find many stories on this forum) to figure out when the doctors are not helpful. No one creates chaos, if one is genuinely seek knowledge. Instead of seeking knowledge, one seeks fame, followers, etc. Or as the other commenter said 'when so much energy is spent trying to undermine one's opponent'. That's a different story. We have to be careful about psuedo-winning against those who create chaos. Here is an interesting piece by Late Prof. Larry Laudan: "Science at the Bar--Causes for Concern" [1], originally appeared in Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (41):16-19 (1982) [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf

globalnode 3y ago

agree, and then we get into the world of combative self interest, its hard to move forward to a solution when so much energy is spent trying to undermine one's opponent -- I did like your description of theory-laden facts though, so thats what they were trying to teach me in science 101 :)

raincom 3y ago
You may find these interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory-ladenness https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22theory-laden%22 https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=%22theor...

adamredwoods 3y ago

>> when someone disputes these descriptions, he is branded as extremist/conspiracy theorist/right wing/labels that many find abhorrent Not always true. The goal of facts is to create trust and order. So when disputing "facts", it will initially cause chaos and disorder. Additionally, challenging a "fact" should come with reasoning (usually through the scientific method), and not an unresearched response. For example, flat-earthers deny a fact, yet offer no research. In such a case, a derogatory label is provided. https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/ https://physicsworld.com/a/fighting-flat-earth-theory/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

raincom 3y ago
There is no such thing as "scientific method". Only school boy conception of science espouses such a view that there is a scientific method. What we have are a set of heuristics learned from the history of natural sciences. These heuristics function as guard rails: for instance, a theory that is postulated to explain already-collected facts is ad hoc; a theory should solve new problems; a theory should solve predict novel 'facts'; do not increase theoretical entities unnecessarily; do not try to explain away by postulating various sub-entities; do not confuse a description with a phenomenon; save the phenomena; etc. When you or I drive/walk, what do we experience: flat earth, of course. In other words, both flat-earthers and spherical-earthers experience the same. Further, flat-earthers reason that if the earth were to be round, one would fall off of the surface of the earth on a sea/land travel. Since such an incident never occured, flat-earthers reason that the earth can't be spherical. Flat-earthers reasoning is not spurious, they are entirely reasonable. How to help them, you have to make them pilots and fly at 50000 feet, and they can experience the sphericalness of the earth directly. In other words, you can't transfer knowledge via authority. That's why there are disputes about what sciences are? Are sciences reduced to a set of theories, or just experiments, both theories and experiments? What happens when one theory gets supplanted by another, better theory? These are deeper questions about knowledge. When I am sick, I trust some or doctor about his knowledge to diagnose. In some cases, even patients start doing research on their own (you can find many stories on this forum) to figure out when the doctors are not helpful. No one creates chaos, if one is genuinely seek knowledge. Instead of seeking knowledge, one seeks fame, followers, etc. Or as the other commenter said 'when so much energy is spent trying to undermine one's opponent'. That's a different story. We have to be careful about psuedo-winning against those who create chaos. Here is an interesting piece by Late Prof. Larry Laudan: "Science at the Bar--Causes for Concern" [1], originally appeared in Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (41):16-19 (1982) [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Laudan.pdf