Beliefs, facts and reality.

Benj96

Facts and beliefs don't really differ much. Both are constructions which serve to rationalise observations/experience of reality. Both are never fully 100% certain. Both often have large dogmas connected to them and groups defined by whether they pursue one dogma or another.

"Facts" have been corrected, or refined or just outright dismissed and replaced due to being BS through the history of the scientific age. For example from Geocentric solar system to heliocentric one. From the 4 humours of the body to miasma theory to modern medicine.

In essence, "facts" are our best guesses. Our most plausible/convincing, practical and enduring or just simply our most popular beliefs.
They are the closest thing we have at any given moment to a concensus on the truth of nature.

But really, really what differs fact from belief is how many of us accept them as such. If everyone believes water is made from angels tears then for all intents and purposes, that's what water becomes.
If everyone believes up is down and the sun rises in the west then that's where it rises and thats probably how compasses would then be constructed to reflect.

And just to really hit home the example of facts being our best but never fully 100% certain beliefs. You'd think the sun is sure to never rise in the west. But other facts like the fact that the magnetic poles reverse every few thousands of years would suggest that yes it would at some point using the same compass as now, rise in the west.

It gets even weirder with beliefs. Even the most arbitrary ones, completely unfounded, completely random without testability nor repeatability or any reason to accept them as such can be made measurable and repeatable like the humble "second" of time. A second, is a human construction. Artificial. But now it's about as objective as it gets because you can measure it and it repeats roughly every second lol. Not only that but it is in nearly every scientific equation because it gives context (arbitrary remember) to the rates and changes and behaviours of all the other things like gravity, acceleration etc.

Beliefs have real world action. Every time I buy a coffee I have just exchanged a symbol we collective believe has X amount of value. And I also agree in the purchase that the coffee amounts to that value. And in doing so have just perpetuated the belief system, have just ensured that the value of that money remains able to do work. If everyone stopped believing dollars or euro had any value other than using it for burning, then that's all heaps of cash would be, like a pile of leaves waiting to be burnt.

The only truth we could ever know, the only fact 100% certain would be one that is eternally consistent. And because we can't measure anythings repeatability for eternity, we should probably just call it a day after the
first 3 or 4 measurements came out the same.

Pantagruel

I think there is a spectrum of belief, stretching from things that we entertain as hypotheticals, to things upon which we are willing to act, in some cases even in defiance of consequences and personal risk. Which is why philosophical exercises that revolve around counterfactual or merely-possible hypotheticals are so tiresome. It isn't really important what someone "might" believe. It is important what people actually do believe, and how much they do believe it. Some people think that belief is easy to accomplish; it isn't. Many people make a great many pretensions to a great many beliefs But how many of those beliefs rise to the status of convictions?

Benj96

↪Pantagruel

absolutely Pantagruel. Excellently articulated. Beliefs are like a sea, some are fleeting and superficial splashes here and there, ripples, a vanishing perturbance, but some are more constitutive, some form the deep body of this sea. Massive and slow to budge, shifting sluggishly with the currents, others still are even deeper and even more stagnant/static. These are the ones that really define a a person - they shape the personality. The self identity, and thus they're of considerable importance.

Beliefs be them individual or collective inform and direct our behaviour and opinions.
.
So when we are faced with reality and asked what ought one believe when really "anything goes" ? The best place to start in my opinion is one of benefit vs harm. Quite pragmatic yes. But what beliefs confer more benefit than damage? Which ones are actually harmful as opposed to those which we simply find eccentric, bizarre or strange ?

A lot of societal issues revolve around that which is perceived as potentially threatening/offensive or fear worthy because of lack of understanding rather than something that is actually definitively destructive. And this is why we need to know when and where to apply tolerance over oppression and control.

Count Timothy von Icarus

Generally, when I've seen "facts" or "matters of fact," used in metaphysics, the term means "things that obtain regardless of what we believe about them." Thus, facts would be certain, our knowledge (beliefs) about them would not be. A fact could not be true or false, it just is.

Not that there is any one "right" way to use the word. I can certainly see the case for "facts" not being certain in this way, but I figured the distinction might be helpful.

Or, to borrow from SEP, main theories of facts are:

A fact is just a true truth-bearer,
A fact is just an obtaining state of affairs,
A fact is just a sui generis type of entity in which objects exemplify properties or stand in relations.

I find the whole fact vs state of affairs vs proposition vs event thing very interesting, even if it starts to seem downright silly sometimes.

The only truth we could ever know, the only fact 100% certain would be one that is eternally consistent. And because we can't measure anythings repeatability for eternity, we should probably just call it a day after the
first 3 or 4 measurements came out the same.

:up: sort of Hume's point re induction.

BC

↪Benj96

I thought one was entitled to ones own opinions, but not entitled to one's own facts.

The magnetic pole has nothing to do with the direction in which the earth is spinning. In order for the sun to rise in the west, the earth would have to come to a standstill, and then start spinning in the other direction.

Banno

Facts and beliefs don't really differ much. — Benj96

True. But beliefs can sometimes be mistaken, not so, facts. That's an important difference.
(

↪BC

already pointed this out.)

And you know more than you think you do.

Pantagruel

↪Banno

But are the facts what we know? For thousands of years humans believed that the sun revolved around the earth. And the fact is, from a strictly geocentric perspective, this is accurate. Isn't it just as likely that at least some of the things which we currently identify as "facts" will be proven to be inaccurate in light of an expanding perspective? Perhaps we should focus more on the power of consensus versus the worship of facts.

Banno

But are the facts what we know? — Pantagruel

Well, yes. If it's not a fact, then by that very fact you do not know it.

This is no more than the way that these words are used.

And of course some of the things we believe are wrong. They are not facts.

It is well worth making the distinction between what is true and what we believe, so that we can acknowledge that we might be wrong. Sometimes what we believe is not true, but if we deny the distinction between belief and truth, we can't even say this. That's what I find objectionable in the OP.

Pantagruel

↪Banno

Ok. So facticity is founded in reality. Except that reality doesn't hold up under intense scrutiny:

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."

Facts may point towards things, but things are not facts. Facts always exist in a context which implies a perspective. So facts are always going to evolve.

Banno

Except that reality doesn't hold up under intense scrutiny... — Pantagruel

Ah, is that so? Is it true?

Drop truth and statements cease to be of any use.

Facts may point towards things, but things are not facts. Facts always exist in a context which implies a perspective. So facts are always going to evolve. — Pantagruel

...none of which implies that facts are not true. Quite the contrary.

Again, if you don't differentiate between what you beleive and what is a fact, you can't be wrong.

Ask Trump.

wonderer1

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." — Pantagruel

Old Niels seems to have been a bit hyperbolic on that one. Everything we call real cannot be regarded as understood, seems a bit more reasonable to me.

Pantagruel

Drop truth and statements cease to be of any use. — Banno

Hence the import of...consensus.

Banno

↪Pantagruel

Sure. But it's not enough. Groups of people can be wrong, too. There's a difference between being at odds with the majority and being wrong.

Pantagruel

Old Niels seems to have been a bit hyperbolic on that one. Everything we call real cannot be regarded as understood, seems a bit more reasonable to me. — wonderer1

Maybe. On the other hand, he probably had a better grasp of quantum mechanics than most, so his credibility rates pretty high with me.

Pantagruel

↪Banno

No doubt, consensus is complex and not simple. :up:

Banno

↪Pantagruel

,

↪wonderer1

, if you restrict yourself to Physics, you will be misled. That you are now reading this sentence is true. Now it isn't. :wink: That's not physics.

Banno

↪Banno No doubt, consensus is complex and not simple. :up: — Pantagruel

...and still not enough. A statements is not true if and only if there is a consensus that it is true.

Pantagruel

...and still not enough. A statements is not true if and only if there is a consensus that it is true. — Banno

I don't think that the future state of the universe is trivially, mechanistically computable from the past. So the kind of "truth" that interests me isn't analytic. In a constructivist framework, consensus may well count towards truth.

wonderer1

That you are now reading this sentence is true. Now it isn't. :wink: — Banno

Of course. :up:

Banno

I don't think that the future state of the universe is trivially, mechanistically computable from the past. — Pantagruel

Nor do I, nor is that sentence strictly analytic - It's not true at the moment, for instance. The point being that there is considerable variation in the statements which are true, and Quantum Mechanics might not be a good area to choose as archetypal.

Consensus counts perhaps towards belief, rather than truth.

Pantagruel

↪Banno

I agree with Dewey's characterization here. Realistically speaking, pragmatically speaking, consciousness is evoked by problematicity. Functional certainty realizes itself as effective practical action. Functional truths are so fundamental as to be constantly evidenced in ongoing processes. We do not question the "truth" of gravity. However when it comes to abstract expression, doubtfulness arises. Is a principle evidenced in a specific case applicable in a wider or more generalized sense? Or even in a different context? In such cases, truth may stand as an ideal or objective, but the actual representation is better described as a "working hypothesis."

Benj96

I thought one was entitled to ones own opinions, but not entitled to one's own facts. — BC

Not sure it's as cut and dry as that. Every widely accepted fact began as one or a handful of people's opinions or beliefs based on the evidence they personally gathered or the arguments they formulated in support. Then people either rejected or accepted them over time.

Where does opinion end and fact begin. This is relatively arbitrary and certainly a moving target as far as the border is concerned.

magnetic pole has nothing to do with the direction in which the earth is spinning. In order for the sun to rise in the west, the earth would have to come to a standstill, and then start spinning in the other direction. — BC

Read it again and think so more. The direction earth is spinning was arbitrarily assigned. The only thing definitive is that earth is spinning in one relatively consistent way. But East, West North and South are not fundamental to space. They're ideas, constructs that we use to orient ourselves and everything in motion.including the earth and how the sun tracks across the sky from horizon to horizon.

Compasses were designed to stabilise this and make orientation consistent. So if the magnetic pole reversed and we used the same compasses without any modifications the needle would point west when it should actually point east and point north when it should be pointing south.

In that case either the compasses are redesigned or regions are re-allocated their opposite direction.. My point was simply to demonstrate that facts can change over time. Maintaining things as facts often takes some arbitrary adjustment or modification to keep them accurate.

Benj96

True. But beliefs can sometimes be mistaken, not so, facts — Banno

So what do we say for things that have such a rare exception that they have been assigned "fact" status, but over time the probability of the rare exception eventually comes to fruition and leaves us scratching our heads as the "fact" no longer definitively accounts for what it's meant to. And someone says oops maybe that fact wasn't that factual afterall. Was that fact mistaken?

We can retrospectively scrap the fact or replace it with a more precise definition that accounts for this rarer exception. We can say hell that is just an "outdated belief" but before we were asserting it as collectively agreed "fact".

The simple point I wished to highlight is whilst facts are certainly very convincing and long lasting, there is always the possibility they are wrong or not universally true..

If all scientific facts were absolute, then there would be no possibility for scientific progress, because that requires rewriting the relationships, definitions and specifics of what came before. An update. Updating the facts.

In that sense one can argue science as a collection of beliefs that are testable, repeatable/consistent. But then one must ask testable with what degree of precision? No instrumental method, no measuring device is absolutely 100% precise nor flawless. And as the tech we use to measure things advances and becomes more sensitive, some "facts" that were established as repeatable with, figuratively speaking, sticks and stones need to be readdressed or replaced because they're not repeatable with say a laser or even less so with a particle accelerator. And that dissonance between old facts and new ones needs to be rationalised or synthesised into new facts. Precision and fact are related. Facts can be mistaken to any degree. If they can't, then we have no true facts at all.

BC

↪Benj96

In my opinion, the line of reasoning you are taking here is problematic.

I recently had this discussion; in a nutshell...

Conservative evangelical: "Employers can't find anyone to fill jobs. There are all these people sitting around doing nothing, People don't want to work. That's a fact!"

Me (left/liberal/pinko): "It isn't that people don't want to work -- it's that there aren't enough workers available. The unemployment rate, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is 3.1% (in this state). 3.1% unemployment is considered "full employment" -- meaning that most people who can work are working."

Conservative evangelical: "That's just your opinion."

There are facts about the world that are different than opinions. A fact may support or weaken an opinion, but an opinion does not support or weaken facts. In my opinion, there are facts about both the social and physical world which are not dependent on opinion.

Fact: Most people take available work that they can do because being able to obtain what we need to live is a better option than having nothing.

Opinion: Most people are lazy and would rather be parasites than be productive.

Would you agree that the above fact is a fact and the opinion is an opinion?

The direction earth is spinning was arbitrarily assigned. The only thing definitive is that earth is spinning in one relatively consistent way. But East, West North and South are not fundamental to space. — Benj96

The earth had been spinning in a very definite way for a few billion years before some smart ass decided that the direction of spin was "assigned" a few years ago. The galaxy had been spinning in the same direction for much longer. The term we use for the direction of spin is a trivial issue, rising from the history of whatever language we use.

We didn't make the world, we discovered the world a couple of million years ago, when we developed enough cognitive power to begin conceptualizing our environments instead of only living in them.

Banno

I agree with Dewey's characterization here. — Pantagruel

I'm a bit surprised to see you rejecting realism, but Dewey is the more coherent of the pragmatists. He had the decency, in his mature thinking, to pretty much drop talk of "truth", replacing it with "assertion".

Banno

Was that fact mistaken? — Benj96

Yep.

Again, as per my previous example, not all facts are scientific. If you base your epistemology purely on science, you will only have accounted for a part of the story.

Ciceronianus

He had the decency, in his mature thinking, to pretty much drop talk of "truth", replacing it with "assertion" — Banno

"Warranted assertibility" is the language he used, in place of "truth" and "knowledge." The idea being to avoid the baggage coming with both terms, and focus on function in the process of inquiry.

Banno

↪Ciceronianus

Yep. thanks for clarifying my recollection.

Dewey might be thought of as addressing belief rather than truth. His concern was not so much to explicate truth as to decide what is true and what isn't, what we ought believe and what we ought not. And pragmatism is a good guide to what it is worth believing. But it remains that what is useful is not the very same as what is true. And hence it remains worth retaining the distinction that

↪Benj96

would minimise.

In particular, "really, really what differs fact from belief is how many of us accept them as such" is a recipe for populist delusion. It's dangerous.

Agree-to-Disagree

In essence, "facts" are our best guesses. Our most plausible/convincing, practical and enduring or just simply our most popular beliefs. — Benj96

The lyrics of "The Boxer" by Paul Simon are often appropriate when discussing beliefs, facts, and reality.

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest — Paul Simon

It is quite common for people to disregard facts and reality. Especially when they conflict with cherished beliefs. Some facts can't be ignored, but humans are very skilled at resolving dissonance by ignoring or denying inconvenient facts and reality.

I like sushi

↪Benj96

Seems a bit silly to equate beliefs with facts in the public sphere.

From a semantic standpoint there is something to be said, but it makes more sense to distinguish the difference rather than gloss over any clear distinction.

How about this:

- beliefs are determined by facts.
- facts are determined by our reality.

Just because one can be mistaken by certain experiences (or misinterpret them) it does not mean that facts and beliefs are hard to distinguish between.

A pure fact is always a fact. Meaning an abstract fact is always known to be true as long as the rules put in place are followed correctly. Mistakes happening do not undermine the meaning of the term ‘fact’.

I like sushi

If all scientific facts were absolute, then there would be no possibility for scientific progress, because that requires rewriting the relationships, definitions and specifics of what came before. An update. Updating the facts. — Benj96

This is either purposeful obfuscation or ignorance.

There is a considerable difference between someone stating that they believe 1+2 = 4 against someone who knows they are wrong. Science is the art of applying abstract facts to reality to increase our precision and understanding of the world.

You can believe the Earth is made of cheese at its core if you wish but not many people will take that seriously. Dogma is more about scholarly laziness than stubbornness or misinterpretation.

Beliefs, facts and reality.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions