What are Facts?
[thoughts from ~burning woman~ by Sha'Tara]
In my wanderings through the English grammar, I came across the reasoning method called syllogism. A simple definition goes like this: deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premises. That then meant I should refresh my understanding of deductive versus inductive reasoning. Deductive: Reasoning from the general to the particular (or from cause to effect). Or, if that's too complicated, deductive reasoning determines facts by combining existing statements. Ok, says I, I'll let that sit on the back burner for a bit while I check inductive reasoning, which reverses the procedure. Now you go from detailed facts to general principles. Put another way, facts are determined from repeated observations.
Now I never take anything at face value, much less if such "thing" is foisted at me from those "Uppers" in academia (for some reason I always want to add the word "nuts" to that word) and from other high places where the "We're Smarter than the Rest of You all are and Laugh at you for your Stupidity in Believing the Crock we Feed You Everyday." sit and live off the blood, sweat and tears of 99% of the planet. If they claim to know better, there's more than a good chance they don't. And if you don't believe me, look at your TV, your infotainment media, listen to your politicians, your CEO's and banksters and let's not forget the shining lights that run the world's militaries. Then, if you are a product of higher learning (say what?) think about how much of what you were force-fed for sixteen or more years of your school-prison life you actually get to use productively in everyday reality.
What that is saying is, I want to test-drive it myself, get a feel for it and try all those buttons and gadgets the salesman would rather I didn't until the sale is complete. You know what I mean.
The thing that jumps to mind in the reasoning methods above is the word "facts" used so openly and genuinely, as if "facts" were a given. Are they?
What are facts? A better question: who determines facts? How do facts become facts? Earth science, for example, is supposed to be all about facts garnered from inductive reasoning. Observe something happening enough times and you can call that a "theory" which in scientific terms comes to mean fact. Once this factual theory is ensconced in scientific academia, it's essentially a fact. Papers, theses, books and volumes are copied, printed and mass-distributed throughout the brainwash factories where parents send their children and the absorption grinds on, from Kindergarten on up
.
I have a problem with the concept that observing something long enough makes it a fact. Problem number one: criteria used. Problem number two, time.
How long has a scientist been "observing" something compared to how long that "something" has been in existence?
Imagine a house mouse living in a human baby's bedroom. The HM is a scientific mouse whose job is to observe the human in its natural habitat: bedroom. So, for 1.8 years (average lifespan of a well-fed and predator-protected HM, he observes his human and writes a report. The process is repeated by other HM's in other human baby bedrooms. The forthcoming theory is that humans cannot function on their own. They cannot feed themselves, clean themselves, walk, talk or even dress themselves. All that must be done by large, dangerous, ungainly creatures who seem designed to take care of the human. Unless carried by the large bipedal creatures no human ever leaves its bed. No human ever develops beyond a one and a half to two foot length. That theory, based on repeated observations, goes into the HM scientific "facts" and is now taught as true science in all HM schools.
In this HM example, observed detailed facts lead to the generalization about humans. As far as the HM is concerned, their observations are correct and their generalizations regarding a human life is necessarily true . Since nothing happens to correct this false view, the theory stands. It is "true " for the HM even if it is completely false at a broader view. That's a major problem with inductive reasoning. Conclusions drawn as facts can be so off-base as to be laughable, and often quite dangerous. Ignorance is not necessarily bliss.
Let's see if I have better "luck" with deductive reasoning to arrive at a certifiable fact. Now I am permitted to draw a conclusion from the coming together of two or more points, or premises, "generally assumed to be true ." That's a little shaky still. Let's take a walk on the wild side here. Socrates' example of deductive reasoning is, "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal." Obviously it is self-evident that all men are mortal, and that Socrates is part of that collective and therefore he has to be mortal. Self-evident, right? Accept that as a fact and carry on down the path... Not quite. There's a woman standing on the path. She's got a reflective vest and a sign that says: "STOP."
I stop and ask, "What's going on?"
She replies, "You can't proceed on your assumption, you have to look at the broader picture before I can let you pass."
I scratch my head. "What do you mean?"
"I mean, your assumption about the self-evident truth that all men are mortal. How can you be so sure?"
Now I think she's crazy. "It's self-evident."
But undeterred she replies, "To whom? Where? How?"
And I know for sure she's nuts now. "Why everywhere. Everybody dies. That's fact."
"Well" says she smiling a bit, "I guess I'm going to have to give you the short course on mind-broadening. Your observation that all men die is based on your awareness of your own history, correct?"
"Yes, of course."
"Is there no more history on this world alone than what you've been taught?"
"Probably, but I can't know what that is unless we make new archeological discoveries that reveal..."
She stops me, "Ok, never mind that, for the purpose of this discussion, all you know is your own man-made history and the rest is hidden from you?"
"Yes."
"So your self-evident "fact" that all men are mortal can only be based on a very short observation time frame of your world then?"
"Yes."
"OK, let me take you on a short journey outside your planet, say a stroll through this one galaxy. How many races of men do you think exist out here?" (By the way, if you haven't been out there already, let me tell you, it's mind-boggling.)
"I don't know that any exist at all." I reply.
"So, you don't know, you cannot state categorically that none exist except on your little planet?"
"Yes, I mean no, I mean who could answer that question with certainty?"
"Good, this is good. Now we have a possibility that billions of races of man exist all over this galaxy. Can you categorically state that if men exist all over this galaxy, they are all mortal?"
"No, of course I can't. If such exist, it is possible conditions differ greatly from one world to another, and some of these races could be immortal. I accept that such is within the realm of the possible, of course."
"Very well. Do you still believe that your example of deductive reasoning is well chosen? That it correctly shows that you have deduced a fact from self-evident truth? Or do you see that indeed, what you have is not self-evident truth at all but an assumption based on a very limited observational range: that of your planet only, and of your own admittedly very short-lived history. If I told you that long before your particular race of men happened here, there were men who were both, immortal and quasi-immortal, living here? Could you prove my statement wrong, or would you just have to assume I'm lying?"
"Based on how I've been taught, it would be an automatic mind reflex to say that you are lying. But the only "proof" available would be what's been known, what's been and is being said, what is being allowed to be made public regarding other histories and finally, that an overwhelming majority of Earth people would also call you a liar. But I realize now that that's no proof at all, just common belief. I have no "fact" to refute you."
"And how does that make you feel at this moment?"
"Surprisingly, it's giving me a great sense of freedom. I realize that facts are not so important; that my ability to imagine things, to break out of my fact-strewn box and take a stroll down alien landscapes and unknown histories is what makes me human. I also realize that I can laugh at the pompous assertions of preachers, educators, scientists and various pundits who base their closed-minded knowledge on earth-man's own inventions and necessarily very limited observations. I think I'm going to enjoy myself for a while going around breaking up facts as a kid breaks windows on an abandoned warehouse."
"Enjoy the rest of your mortal life. Try to imagine what comes after. Make up your own facts. And yes, do laugh! And now you may pass."
For what it's worth, I can tell there was a double meaning to her words, "You may pass."
After thinking about it briefly, I think the facts are those things that provide survival. If archaeology and anthropology are correct, and I am both aware and enjoy new discoveries that shed light on how we became human and able to do the kind of inductive and deductive thinking that you describe.
Getting back to survival. Observation of primitive populations show that lifetimes of individuals depend greatly on the knowledge of the environment these populations live in. Basically, any information that extends lifespan, a food source for example, becomes a fact. If a shaman prescribes a certain mushroom as a medicine and it kills the individual that eats it, the shaman gains knowledge about that mushroom and the fact that it kills.
Simply put, facts increase our survival. Myth, superstition, lies and mistakes decrease our survival.
It is a fact that Jane is a twit. But, survival requires the fact that a man and a woman get in bed together, or if they choose, do it somewhere else!
Ron
Love ya!
Jane