scientific theory vs. fact

[pioneer]

A theory will set up a conceptual framework within the brain from which we will perceive reality. The facts are not always the facts, per se, since the conceptual framework can create its own unconscious expectation of what the facts appear to be.

 

For example, an old theory was the earth was the center of the universe and the sun moved across the sky from east to west. Based on this theory, it was a well known fact that the sun moves from east to west. However, in reality the sun is not moving, rather the earth is spinning. One may notice how the original theory helped defined its own facts, simply because it placed this observation within the parameters of its own framework. To deny east to west, back then, makes you appear to deny the facts everyone can plainly see.

 

Once the earth changed its position as center of the universe, into moving around the sun, the facts for the same observation changed, since we will now interpret them in the context of the new framework. The earth is spinning. Relativity uses curved space-time to further alter the facts of this observation.

 

Sometimes you can't critique a theory via the facts, since this is a fixed fight. Theories make people unable see the same facts in another way, since the framework of the theory will place this fact exactly in the spot expected. So one needs to approach the framework itself. Copernicus could not deny east to west, so he needed to shake the framework so those under the spell of their own expectations, could see the facts in a newer way.

Edited September 28, 2010 by pioneer

[lemur]

Sure, and you can't directly see the paperclip either. What enters your eye is light from a light source that hits the paperclip and is absorbed/reflected from it, passes through your cornea and lens, which focus the image onto your retina. The light excites the photosensitive cells in the retina, which excite nerves, which causes a series of depolarizations of nerves followed by release of hormones at the synapses and absorption into the synapses of the next nerve, etc, producing patterns of nerve impulses that travel to your brain and are interpreted by the visual cortex as a paperclip, then this information sent to your consciousness. (this is the simplified version of course).

This may be true, but to know it, each of these things has to have been observed empirically, including the lens, cornea, nerves, hormones, synapses, etc etc. Then, all the processes of interaction among them has to be theorized, tested, etc. to form a systems-model. But I don't think it's useful or wise to regard the synthetic level as more fundamental than the direct empirical level.

 

 

Now suppose that what you see is a paperclip dancing a jig. Is it a fact that the paperclip was dancing a jig? Why would this not be a fact if you consider the other things you see a paperclip does to be facts? Perhaps because you have theoretical reasons to believe paperclips do not dance and so what you saw was not real?

You jump very quickly to the synthetic-analytical level. Yes, theoretical knowledge can help you neutralize your observations. You might revise your observation from "dancing a jig" to moving in an erratic pattern. Nevertheless, my point is that you base factual observations on the presumption of empirical reference, not abstractions, generalizations, or patterns.

 

A theory will set up a conceptual framework within the brain from which we will perceive reality. The facts are not always the facts, per se, since the conceptual framework can create its own unconscious expectation of what the facts appear to be.

Fine, but we can also try to observe that framework in terms of facts, including direct observation of our own thoughts. My big point is that when you observe a thought, it would be a fact. If you would observe a thought-pattern, what you would really be observing was a thought regarding other (past) thoughts. So mainly I'm concerned with differentiating between direct observation and synthetic 'observation,' which does not generate facts but extrapolations, imo.

 

For example, an old theory was the earth was the center of the universe and the sun moved across the sky from east to west. Based on this theory, it was a well known fact that the sun moves from east to west. However, in reality the sun is not moving, rather the earth is spinning. One may notice how the original theory helped defined its own facts, simply because it placed this observation within the parameters of its own framework. To deny east to west, back then, makes you appear to deny the facts everyone can plainly see.

No one "plainly sees" the Earth's roundness. I believe that Galileo used a pendulum to track changes in its direction and used the data to extrapolate support for the idea that the Earth was moving. Why would you want to confound directly observable facts with theoretical knowledge unless you were trying to endow theoretical knowledge with extra efficacy in everyday beliefs? Why should people believe that the Earth is spinning and revolving around the sun instead of just understanding it as a well-grounded theory?

 

Once the earth changed its position as center of the universe, into moving around the sun, the facts for the same observation changed, since we will now interpret them in the context of the new framework. The earth is spinning. Relativity uses curved space-time to further alter the facts of this observation.

What facts does it alter, specifically?

 

Sometimes you can't critique a theory via the facts, since this is a fixed fight. Theories make people unable see the same facts in another way, since the framework of the theory will place this fact exactly in the spot expected. So one needs to approach the framework itself. Copernicus could not deny east to west, so he needed to shake the framework so those under the spell of their own expectations, could see the facts in a newer way.

That's great. I'm for that. I'm for theorizing and comparing how facts relate to each other in different theoretical frameworks. I still think, however, that it is worth distinguishing direct empiricism from theoretical-contextualism or whatever you want to call it. In other words, it helps to understand the relationship between facts as they appear in discourse and their (implied) empirical basis for observation. So, for example, when you claim that it is a fact that the planets revolve around the sun, you should be aware that no observer has ever been in a position outside the solar system necessary to observe this. So this is not really a fact but an extrapolation from general ideas about the way gravity causes massive bodies to interact. That is different from looking at a tree and observing that the leaves are farther from the ground than the trunk. That is a direct observation.

 

 

[ccdan]

while some people claim that facts don't exist, no one dares to "transgress" gravity (or the space-time curvature, if you want) jumping from high rise buildings without parachute or the effect of high current on their skin

[lemur]

while some people claim that facts don't exist, no one dares to "transgress" gravity (or the space-time curvature, if you want) jumping from high rise buildings without parachute or the effect of high current on their skin

 

You're confounding concepts instead of clarifying them, and I would like to know why. When you say "some people claim that facts don't exist," are you aware how vague a statement this is? How can anyone claim that facts don't exist? Yes, people can debate what constitutes or "counts as" as a fact, but to say that they don't exists implies that they do in some context other than the one where they are claimed not to. That's confounding.

 

Whether or not people "dare to transgress" assumptions has little to do with whether the laws they are obeying are valid. Someone who rigorously avoids stepping on cracks in the sidewalk out of superstition is also not daring to transgress, but in that case the obedience is not to a valid authority.

 

Still, I think you are assuming that validity, truth, and factuality are interchangeable terms/concepts. I maintain that gravity is not factual, although it is a valid generalization of factual observations. Validity is not less "true" than factuality. They are not terms that differ in degree but in scope. Factuality just doesn't apply to abstractions, generalizations, or indirect observations, imo. Something falling to the ground or the feeling of an electric shock are facts. Gravity and electricity are generalized observed patterns that provide valid predictions about future events, but that is different from being facts.

Edited September 28, 2010 by lemur

[pioneer]

Facts can be conditioned with marketing. For example, it may be a fact that more people prefer brand X. This study can be repeated hundreds of times by independent labs to achieve the same results, since all the labs would witness the same product sales count. But this fact might be due to brand X being better or can also be due to brand X having the best marketing team. Say schools decide to bring brand X into the lunch room, so the students are not only more familiar with brand X, but also have time to get used to and acquire a taste for brand X, it can then be a proven fact that more students prefer brand X. Say brand X lobbies to keep brand Y out of the classroom, the fact will remain that brand X is the preferred brand by all the schools.

Edited September 28, 2010 by pioneer

[swansont]

Facts can be conditioned with marketing. For example, it may be a fact that more people prefer brand X. This study can be repeated hundreds of times by independent labs to achieve the same results, since all the labs would witness the same product sales count. But this fact might be due to brand X being better or can also be due to brand X having the best marketing team. Say schools decide to bring brand X into the lunch room, so the students are not only more familiar with brand X, but also have time to get used to and acquire a taste for brand X, it can then be a proven fact that more students prefer brand X. Say brand X lobbies to keep brand Y out of the classroom, the fact will remain that brand X is the preferred brand by all the schools.

 

For the lay population, sure. Horoscopes and creationism and homeopathy and a whole host of others get swallowed whole by a credulous public. But I can't think of a single example of facts or theories that are accepted within the science community simply because they have "better branding." Theories have to work. Do you have an example in mind?

[pioneer]

For example, biology makes most of its assumption out of the context of the water. The DNA double helix is actually a quadruple helix with two helixes of water. If we take the water away, there is no bioactivity to the DNA, yet this is not part of the equation. Market branding keeps this going.

 

Another science market brand is connected to probability. This assumes there is enough energy for full randomization, but fails to take into consideration that the odds change when we have partial energy randomizations. For example, we need to add enough energy to shuffle a deck of cards completely before the calculated odds apply. If we don't add enough energy to the shuffle, the odds are not the same. Market branding sells the idea that full energy randomization is dogma, with this dogma preferred far and wide.

 

Relative to mutations, different parts of the DNA mutate at different rates, which implies we do not have sufficient energy for full DNA randomization. This allows the cells to change odds. Yet market branding ignores tells us we can ignore this and just add other fudge factors. The reason partial energy randomization occurs comes back to water, which another market brand fails to take into account. Brands X and Y are part of all school lunches and dinners and therefore builds up bias for these brands.

Edited September 28, 2010 by pioneer

[Ophiolite]

For example, biology makes most of its assumption out of the context of the water.

Could you repeat this statement in such a way that its semantic content is greater than zero?

 

The DNA double helix is actually a quadruple helix with two helixes of water..

Interesting. I was unaware of this. Can you provide a citation please.

. If we take the water away, there is no bioactivity to the DNA,.

and again, please.

 

yet this is not part of the equation.

which equation? Assume I am really slow and not very bright and you won't be far wrong.