The other day over at OTB, James Joyner posted on facts, the credibility of evidence, and how social relations and preconceptions affect our perception of the credibility of evidence:
Krugman leads us to some research which explains why this tribalism is so pervasive. Partly, he attributes this to what Richard Dawkins terms “argument from personal incredulity,†a refusal to accept facts that don’t jibe with their personal experience. For example, “Our intuitions about how business-y stuff works come from businesses or households selling their goods or labor to an external market. In such situations spending less is a sure-fire way to reduce debt, cutting your price or your wage demand is a sure-fire way to sell more. But in the economy as a whole, your spending is my income and vice versa; my wage matters only in comparison to your wage; and so on. This changes everything, which is why we have paradoxes of thrift and flexibility.â€
A lengthy comment thread followed which wandered from the existence (or non-existence) of God, Pascal’s wager, scientific fact, and points east.
I think that the word “fact” is bandied about a bit too much and said so in a comment. Another commenter replied with an example cited as a fact:
It is a fact that water melts at 0 degree c (at standard pressure).
He never defined what he meant by “fact” so let’s see what we can infer what he means from his example.
What is water? The easy explanation is that it’s a substance composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Other than at the molecule level that doesn’t exist in nature. When you turn your tap what pours out is not water. It’s a mixture of any number of substances including water and which we hope has water as its primary component. Even the purest water has some level of contamination.
Invariant temperature (the implication of the phrase “0 degree c”) does not exist in nature, either. And how would you know? The finest tools for measuring temperature have some level of inaccuracy. A good resistance temperature detector is accurate to .03°C or, said another way, it is approximate.
Finally, invariant standard pressure doesn’t exist in nature, either. “Standard pressure” is defined as the pressure that will support a column of mercury 760 mm high at sea level and 0 degrees centigrade. It is, by definition, 101.325 kPa. Note a couple of things about the definition: a) it relies on temperature—it’s circular; b) it relies on measurements more precise than real world measurements; c) it relies on perfect substances.
Or, in other words, a perfect substance under perfect conditions will behave in such and such a way. Does that comport with your intuitive definition of a fact?
I think there’s a great misunderstanding including on the part of far too many scientists about what science actually is. Science is not about identifying facts and then defending those facts against attack. It is about collecting data, constructing models based on the data, and adjusting the models as new data comes along that contradicts your old model. But the territory is not the map. Only the territory is the territory.
Engineering, on the other hand, is about making things work. It is informed by science but every engineer I know is painfully aware of the perversity of nature.
Or, in other words, a perfect substance under perfect conditions will behave in such and such a way. Does that comport with your intuitive definition of a fact?
Yes, but I am a mathematician by training. Axiomatic thought doesn’t particularly trouble me, nor does working from the abstract to the particular. And as a living creature, I am interested in things actually getting done, so I don’t worry about caveating everything for maximal precision. I don’t need a TOE to decide to move a chair from one side of the room to another.
Very much my point.
I thought your point is that everyone doesn’t understand epistemology.
I don’t think you need to understand epistemology. However, I do think it’s very useful to understand how fragile what we actually know is. The distinction I’m trying to make is between wisdom and humility. We could certainly use more wisdom but I think that right about now more humility is really essential.
I think this comment of Dave’s is worth pulling out as well:
When Illinois had a large number of wrongful convictions convictions on death row, they put a panel together to identify sources of systematic error (and propose solutions). As I recall a big one was reliance on erroneous bystander testimony, people who saw the crime or some element of it. The report referenced recent memory studies, showing that people’s retrieval of their own memories can act like a game of “telephone” — each time the memory is retrieved and expressed, the memory changes slightly and the more times this is done, the more the memory changes. Even after a long time, memories can remain intact, if they are not subject to repeated use.
This is beyond issues of bias or manipulation of memory; it appears to be a limitation in our ability to use our perceptions with 100% confidence over time. And some of the things that people do to strengthen their memories (restating them) may actually weaken them.
We could certainly use more wisdom but I think that right about now more humility is really essential.
Until you precisely define “humility” and “wisdom” I have no idea what you mean.
The report referenced recent memory studies, showing that people’s retrieval of their own memories can act like a game of “telephone†— each time the memory is retrieved and expressed, the memory changes slightly and the more times this is done, the more the memory changes.
Yes, but have those studied been repeated? Have they been repeated to the point of verification? There’s been a lot of studies recently about bad studies after all…. (Which studies about bad studies may themselves be bad, after all.)
Also, every time I retreive the memory for the answer to the question “What is 2 + 2 in the real number system (or sub-sets thereof)?” I keep getting the same answer, even for arbitrary values of two!
“Yes, but have those studied been repeated? Have they been repeated to the point of verification?”
I don’t recall.
I don’t recall.
Is it that you don’t recall, or that you have recalled not recalling to the point where you are convinced that you don’t recall, even though you once could recall? Perhaps the next time you should recall that you recalled it in the past, thus allowing you to recall in the future that you recalled in the past. Assuming you recall my advice, that is.
It’s turtles all the way down….
It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
I think it depends on exactly what you’re talking about, most of the big work in cognitive psychology and things like confirmation bias was done in the 1960’s and 1970’s as I recall. Study on this topic has gone back further than that in the intelligence profession.
BTW, still love this Ted Talk, especially the very last bit, which is relevant to the OTB discussion.
Lets really get this party started.
If we really want to be pure, and as I think icepick was (correctly) referencing and would understand in his bones, only mathematics can be pure. For the elements are defined, the operations are defined and therefore the results are true by definition. Nothing else can be, for the reasons Dave cited.
However, measurement error, or imperfect inputs doesn’t really invalidate theory, or a “factual” result of a theory. The fact, heh, that tap water has contaminants, or that barometric pressure varies in the real world doesn’t invalidate the notion that pure water undergoes a liquid to solid phase transformation at standard pressure and 32 degrees F. Phase diagrams anyone?? And if you want to go to the limit, just invoke the uncertainty principal. Unfortunately, you end up with reducto absurdum. Are we ready for a philosophical discussion of the Gibbs-Duhem equation, the ruler of all things chemical???? The close proximity of reality in practice does not invalidate the notion of fact.
I may be wrong, but I think I’m the only resident (former) engineer here. At the risk of harpoons and arrows coming my way, I happen to think that also makes me the ultimate pragmatist. Why do I say that? Because all of the fundamental tools of the trade – math, physics, chemistry, etc apply and are a wonderful cornerstone to practioners……. but its those foundations plus human resources, equipment capability, process control etc that make it all work. Those crushed scrap cars charged into the steelmaking furnace may, or may not, have wet seats in them instead of just metal, hell, they may have dead bodies. The manganese bin may have 100% manganese, or maybe some drunken idiot on the midnight shift put in some chromium. And so it goes. But we still end up with a usable engineering material called steel. Engineers are resourceful pragmatists.
You guys and gals didnt think this would end without a political angle…didya? I didnt read the OTB piece as I spend so much less time there these days. But I suspect the notion over at OTB was that there are no truths, and so political debate is all in the eye of the beholder. Balls.
We have the mother of all experiments going on in Europe these days. They have instituted (for decades), and are following, all of the current leftist thinking in the US today. In fact, France just doubled down. Get your popcorn, open up a cream soda, and sit back and watch. I’m thinking this movie has a bad ending. Greece is prologue. Others may differ….. But there will emerge a “truth,” however imperfectly measured.
No, but it means that we should be cautious in what we characterize as facts. There are axioms, tautologies, and rules of thumb. Many “facts” are only facts under certain conditions. Newton’s Laws of Motion come to mind. Others are facts until they aren’t, viz. the aether.
Some things are neither provable nor disprovable. They may be facts or fictions. We just don’t know. Some things are too complex to know whether they’re facts or fictions. For Paul Krugman, for example, the Keynesian multiplier is clearly a fact. I was taught it was a fact in school (along with the Phillips Curve and Okun’s Law). Now we don’t know whether they’re facts, fictions, artifacts, or even rules of thumb that don’t work particularly well.
BTW, that pure water changes state at 0 and 100 degrees C at standard pressure is tautological: that’s how the system is defined.
The point that I was trying to make, Drew, is that the converse of that is also true. If you follow all of the rules and it doesn’t work, you make it work. Theory is subordinated to practicality. That’s what I meant by “the perversity of nature”. Or, as an engineer buddy of mine used to say “Don’t force it. Use a bigger hammer.”
If we really want to be pure, and as I think icepick was (correctly) referencing and would understand in his bones, only mathematics can be pure. For the elements are defined, the operations are defined and therefore the results are true by definition. Nothing else can be, for the reasons Dave cited.
Yeah, but even in mathematics there are a couple of flies in the ointment. First, Godel fucked the whole mathematics project in the ass. Not that he was wrong to do so, the truth is what it is, but that’s what it amounted to.
Second, even if Godel hadn’t ruined the project, there’s still the problem of content. Say you set up your axioms and then take the time to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Fantastic! The only problem is that 1 + 1 = 2 is a statement completely devoid of content outside of the axiom system. It does not actually mean anything otherwise. It took me a while to realize that, and when I did it was something of a shock. It’s also rather liberating if one is into that sort of thing.
What this second point means is that you can use mathematics to model reality only to the extent that conditions match the axioms.
Example. One apple plus one other apple equals two apples. That has content! But it also assumes we are measuring quantity by comparing ‘whole’ apples. But what if you are seeking to measure weight instead of quantity? One apple plus one apple might not equal two apples – it depends entirely on the apples you are using.
This kind of messiness is why physics got more out of mathematics than other sciences – the nature of what is being studied allows for a cleaner application of axiom systems. (This last part is badly worded.)
…
Rhazib Khan coincidentally has a post up on reification today.
Crud, I screwed up my tags. There should be a at the end of completely devoid of content. Grrrr.
Update (Dave Schuler):
Closed the tag for you.
That’s really an excellent comment, Icepick. Yes. To my eye much of what is asserted as fact is either axiom, tautology, or trivia. Axiom and tautology are fine as far as they go but you’ve got to be aware of the limitations. And too many people aren’t.
BTW, I owe you definitions of wisdom and humility. Wisdom is the ability to prioritize appropriately. Humility is the recognition of your own limitations.
“Appropriately” is in the eye of the beholder!
And thanks for closing the tag for me.
It just implies an evaluation function.
It just implies an evaluation function.
Hmmm. In that case your definition of humility should include something about NOT being self-centered, too. As it stands presently I don’t think it rules out self-centeredness. One can understand that one has limitations but still only care about oneself.
Yeah, good comment Icepick. It goes back to something from my intelligence analysis training: There are facts, the meaning of facts, analysis based on facts, and opinion based on facts. People, including me too often, confuse one for another.
“No, but it means that we should be cautious in what we characterize as facts. There are axioms, tautologies, and rules of thumb. Many “facts†are only facts under certain conditions. Newton’s Laws of Motion come to mind. Others are facts until they aren’t, viz. the aether.”
With all due respect, I think this is weak. Nobody is arguing that “facts” are folk lore. Rather, that when they are so close to the absolute, to dispute them is folly or just mental masturbation. As for Newton. That’s simply scientific advancement. The “facts” are true in all we know in practical experience. When practical experience advances, we can advance the theory. And by the way, anyone traveled near the speed of light here on this site? Please contact me if you have such a travel agent….
“Some things are neither provable nor disprovable. They may be facts or fictions. We just don’t know. Some things are too complex to know whether they’re facts or fictions. For Paul Krugman, for example, the Keynesian multiplier is clearly a fact. I was taught it was a fact in school (along with the Phillips Curve and Okun’s Law). Now we don’t know whether they’re facts, fictions, artifacts, or even rules of thumb that don’t work particularly well.”
Absolutely correct. I would stipulate its all bullshit. But I dont know it for a fact. However, the engineer in me who simply won’t go away would observe that the empirical evidence makes the Krugmanesque propositions awfully dubious, and at tremendous cost.
“BTW, that pure water changes state at 0 and 100 degrees C at standard pressure is tautological: that’s how the system is defined.”
That is correct. Would you care to postulate an alternative that has any usefulness to the human species? If not, it is effectively, a “fact.”
“The point that I was trying to make, Drew, is that the converse of that is also true. If you follow all of the rules and it doesn’t work, you make it work. Theory is subordinated to practicality.”
Actually, Dave, I dont even know what that means, but it appears to be flat damned wrong. And it is, in my humble opinion, the problem with so much debate, whether public or this blogsite or whatever. I’m completely the opposite in worldview. That engineering thingy. I have my views, theoretically. But I always observe reality as best I can, and adapt. That said, I always consider that my observed reality could be affected by exogenous variables or data flaws etc. Said another way, I’m a realist.
Here’s a thought experiment. We declared a war on poverty in 1965. The poverty rate is unchanged today. Suppose we took all the funds for the war on poverty and created a trust fund. Look at the yield, and the population deemed poor. Do the math. I have.
We were discussing something about facts, theories and sech. Its an article of faith among the left that we need to tax more and spend more to “help the poor.” Its a “fact.” Else you are a nihilist. Do the math and ask why we dont have more funds than we know what to do with to “help the poor.” Again, that silly pragmatist in me coming out…..
Aside from his silly final paragraph I find myself with Drew on this.
I’d go into it more but the philosophical debate the other day ended up dragging Husserl into it and there are limits on my time and patience.
As for engineers being the ultimate pragmatists, nah, sorry. There’s a long history of engineers remembering their math and forgetting the ultimate user. They’re as likely to be trapped in errors of presupposition as anyone else.
And by the way, anyone traveled near the speed of light here on this site? Please contact me if you have such a travel agent….
If you use a GPS device, you are in need of Einsteinian theories on gravity. Relativistic effects do happen at orbital speeds, and those effects need to be accounted for in the calculations telling you where you are.
We declared a war on poverty in 1965. The poverty rate is unchanged today. Suppose we took all the funds for the war on poverty and created a trust fund. Look at the yield, and the population deemed poor. Do the math. I have.
You are assuming that the poverty rate would have remained constant if the “war on poverty” programs hadn’t been enacted. It is possible that those programs did keep the rate from going higher. I personally don’t believe that’s the case, but it is conceivable.
@Drew, I think the OTB discussion this flowed from was a thread in which a number of people expressed confidence that they are in possession of “the truth” and those who disagree with them are biased. This discussion flowed from posts highlighted by Joyner that emphasized the role of confirmation bias in “scientific” discussions about gun control, macro-economics, and environmental risk. IMHO, these are policy disputes, not factual disputes.
I think Andy and Dave are just offering a dose of reality about what we know in terms of falsifiable propositions.
@Ice
“Yeah, but even in mathematics there are a couple of flies in the ointment. First, Godel fucked the whole mathematics project in the ass. ”
Uh, actually, no. What Godel showed was that if one thinks of mathematics in a certain way (the Russell-Whitehead-Hilbert way), then one is hosed. However, there is no need to think of mathematics in that way.
“What is water? The easy explanation is that it’s a substance composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Other than at the molecule level that doesn’t exist in nature. When you turn your tap what pours out is not water.”
I don’t want to get too deeply into the weeds here (and those are some thick and gnarly weeds), but that’s the road to philosophical peridition. Part of what I learned when I learned the word ‘water’ (acquired the concept of water) was that that was what in fact did come out of the tap. Saying it’s not water is somewhat akin to saying a table is not really solid because there’s all this empty space between the atoms…
If you define it any other way, the fact becomes a fiction. The boiling point of tap water varies slightly depending on its composition.
What Godel showed was that if one thinks of mathematics in a certain way (the Russell-Whitehead-Hilbert way), then one is hosed. However, there is no need to think of mathematics in that way.
I don’t think you are getting the full impact, either of Godel or of the Hilbert program. Godel’s work puts a real freakin’ crimp on Arithmetic Systems. Stating that there are true axiomatic systems that have greater than Aleph-Naught axioms doesn’t do a damned thing for anyone less than God, and in fact it limits what God could know, too. It blasts a hole in the idea of formal proof.
We get by without consistency because there the veins of thought are so rich, but it is a problem nonetheless. There are things that we simply cannot know, even in the realm of mathematics. Logicians have been looking for a way to break Godel’s stranglehold for 80+ years now, without success. I don’t think they’ll escape. [The rest snipped for reasons of personal greed.]
I’ll just repeat what I said: Godel is a problem for those who conceive of mathematics in a certain way.
“Logicians have been looking for a way to break Godel’s stranglehold for 80+ years now, without success. ”
See, Wittgenstein, Remarks of the Foundations of Mathematics.
A fact doesn’t become fiction just because it’s not precisely enough defined. It’s a fact if I jump off this deck I will fall to the ground. Define deck (maybe it’s a balcony) define jump (what if Im pushed?) define fall, (is there an updraft?) define ground (maybe the Roadrunner brings me a mattress) it doesn’t make it any less true that if I jump off the deck I’ll fall to the ground.
“If you define it any other way, the fact becomes a fiction. The boiling point of tap water varies slightly depending on its composition.”
You’re missing my point. I acquired the concept of water long, long before I found out its chemical compostion. I daresay there are lots of folks who don’t know what water is composed of (at the atomic level). Does this mean they are talking gibberish when they ask for a glass of water, ask if the water is cold, say the water is hot, and so on? I don’t think they’re speaking gibberish. “This is a glass of cold water from the tap” and “this is a cup of hot water from the kettle” are just as much facts about this world, just as legitimate items of the furniture of the earth, as any I can think of.
michael, I think that’s a prediction. But I wouldn’t put money against it.
I think Drew has the better of it here. Quantum theory has taught us that Newton was ‘wrong’ about a lot of stuff, but it does not matter most of the time.
Of course he is wrong about the political aspects. He neglects to mention that it was the banks gone wild (who in their right mind would loan money to Greece?) that created the current crisis in Europe. The Scandinavian countries are doing everything wrong, by his metrics, yet are doing fine.
Steve
Ok, question for the crowd:
How precise does a fact need to be in order to be a fact?
The Scandinavian countries are doing everything wrong, by his metrics, yet are doing fine.
That cuts two ways, as Greece is doing everything correctly by your metric, and they’re fucking toast.
As for the banks, do they have a choice on buying Greek bonds? Were they stuck with primary dealer obligations to purchase at auction? (I’m asking because I don’t know, these aren’t rhetorical questions.)
Here’s some stuff on Fed Primary dealers which gets at what I’m asking. Banks and the central banks are tied together pretty closely, and that means tying those banks in with governments and government debt from what I can tell.
Here’s a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/30/greece-bonds-dealers-idUSL6E7NU0LC20111230"list of current Greek primary dealers. I note several American entries. Not sure how the Greeks structure their bond market, though, or rather, how the ECB currently tells them to structure their bond markets.
“Aside from his silly final paragraph I find myself with Drew on this.”
Heh. Progress, and we take our victories where we can……
“As for engineers being the ultimate pragmatists, nah, sorry. There’s a long history of engineers remembering their math and forgetting the ultimate user. They’re as likely to be trapped in errors of presupposition as anyone else.”
OK. Real engineers. Not faux engineers.
“If you define it any other way, the fact becomes a fiction. The boiling point of tap water varies slightly depending on its composition.”
Hence my phase diagram reference. (Which you, perhaps, fully “get,”given the recent reference to physical chemistry. But I bet most won’t fully understnd.) However, this, as I said, is reducto absurdum. Here’s a pin. It has a head. Shall we dance?
“Of course he is wrong about the political aspects.”
Fuck you…………….. Just kidding. That’s why I like this place. Strong blog proprietor. Strong crew.
“Saying it’s not water is somewhat akin to saying a table is not really solid because there’s all this empty space between the atoms…”
Perfect.
Phase diagrams aren’t that esoteric, Drew.
“Phase diagrams aren’t that esoteric, Drew.”
I didn’t say they were, although 99 out of a hundred people dont know what they are. Those in the appropriate fields do. But here’s a pop quiz. How is it relevant to the discussion, Mr. Non-Esoteric?
Well, we don’t seem to be getting anywhere. I think it’s ultimately a definitional dispute. I suppose the definition of “fact” isn’t a “fact.”
But here’s a pop quiz. How is it relevant to the discussion, Mr. Non-Esoteric?
We’re talking about phase transitions, when they occur (under what temperature & pressure combinations) and such. Phase diagrams give a nice handy-dandy way of telling when a given substance should transition from one phase (solid/liquid/gas) to another at various combinations of temp/pressure.
Metaphorically, I suppose it can be thought of as a way of determining under which conditions “facts” count as “facts”. Make one axis scientific/engineering/mathematical necessity and the other axis sheer pedantry, and go from there. 😉
I’d still be surprised if as few as 1 in 100 got what a phase diagram was, though. They’re pretty standard use in high school chemistry classes. Plus, they’re a wonderful way to condense a lot of knowledge into a convenient packet. (I believe there are other, more detailed versions as well, that I assume capture other properties.) Shouldn’t more people than that have taken high school chemistry and not fried their brains huffing the chemicals? (Or staring at their teacher’s ass, in my case. DAMN that woman was hot!)
And Andy, I pretty much agree with Rhazib Khan’s points about reification that I linked to earlier.
And Andy, I pretty much agree with Rhazib Khan’s points about reification that I linked to earlier.
Which is to say, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not a macro-scopic manefestation of quantum phenomena in a Universe dominated by Einsteinian concepts of relativity, absent a working TOE of course. But that’s just me!
Metaphorically, I suppose it can be thought of as a way of determining under which conditions “facts†count as “factsâ€. Make one axis scientific/engineering/mathematical necessity and the other axis sheer pedantry, and go from there.
Okay, so make scientific/engineering/mathematical necessity the vertical axis. Make sheer pedantry the horizontal axis. The upper left sloping up into a small corner in the upper right will be an area we will call “TRUE”. To the right we will have an area marked “FALSE”, as you can almost never convince the pedants of anything. The rest with be an area called “CLINTONESQUE”, where everything depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
“How precise does a fact need to be in order to be a fact?”
Wittgenstein, developing his notion of the language game (arguing that there is no one thing that everything we call a game posseses as a defining characteristic — games have no essence):
“That cuts two ways, as Greece is doing everything correctly by your metric, and they’re fucking toast.”
Ummm, no. Greece has been in default half of the last 150 years. Greeks make sport of tax avoidance. Much of their economy has been owned by the government. It has been a mess for a long time. I know of no one who holds it up as an example of good governance.
Steve
Greeks make sport of tax avoidance.
So does the President’s favorite billionaire and his Treasury Secretary and one of his biggest corporate supporters (GE).
And it’s good governance you want? Huh.
Ice pick
As I suspected, you don’t truly understand what phase diagrams ar e all about, or the reference in this discussion, as your response revealed.
Bring in another dimension. And here is a hint: Gibbs-Duhem. Think about the chemical dimension, and then think about free energy. It makes the world go round. Now go to Wickapedia for salvation……..
Drew, are you telling me that phase diagrams DON’T tell us anything about phase transitions for pressure and temperature combinations for a given substance? I did mention there were more complicated versions that did more stuff.
Now if I need to state every single thing that’s going on in the background, perhaps you should do the same AND SAY WHAT YOU MEAN CLEARLY instead of telling everyone else that something is going on and only you get to know what it is. Try some reciprocity for a change and state what you mean instead of telling everyone else they’re stupid for not reading your alleged mind.