Philosophy of History Part I: Facts

[Resha Caner]

What you say here deserves more time than I can give it tonight.

There's no rush.

Your paralleling of the disciplines of history and science causes me to ask, should not all the knowledge disciplines be considered as science? When it comes down to it, is not science just a methodology which can be used in any field of “finding out” and does not “finding out” always eventually lead to practical ends?

... Is there really any important difference between historical facts and a scientific facts, as pieces of information? What is it?

The differences are very important. Science always involves a test of the objective in one form or another. Either I am "testing" the mathematical structure of a model where the axioms and theorems are known (solving a differential equation works the same way every time) or I am testing nature (gravity doesn't lie to me). I'm not saying scientific tests are perfect, but only that there is something objective being tested.

Such is not the case in history. I can't tell whether Livy was truthful by testing the pH of the ink he used or by bouncing radio waves off the paper, etc. There is nothing objective to test. What about the "facts" you may ask? One of my points all along has been that facts are much more basic than people seem to realize. Facts don't tell a story. They are simply units of data - not even information.

If you think otherwise, give me a sample list of facts and the associated historical narrative, and let's see if the first obligates the second.

Concerning your OP, after pondering awhile, no I don't agree. Facts are things that are true and correct as opposed to false, existent in reality as opposed to made up in the imagination. ...

Sorry but I can't go with; “... history … The stories we tell about ourselves.”, either.

I'm inferring, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want facts to be an absolute truth. Absolute truth requires infinite knowledge, so it is something only God can provide. Given historical fact is discerned by humans, it is not absolute truth. Once there is a possibility for error, there can no longer be a singular authority. I can't claim to be the sole proprietor of fact, nor can you. You can conclude I'm not worth convincing - cast me off - work amongst a select group who agrees certain things are facts. But then it would still remain that we disagree on what is fact. So what have you gained? What truth?

I think the dilemma one gets into when trying to make some claim that facts are truth whether we believe it or not was best put in an article by Stephen Barr, "Stephen Hawking worried that if physics produced a 'theory of everything' then that theory would have to explain why some people believed in it and some didn't; and their respective beliefs would then be the inevitable consequence of physical processes taking place in their brains rather than the validity of their reasoning."

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do you think of the following: facts are minimalist; facts are contextual consensus.

I have no idea what facts being "minimalist" means, but facts aren't produced merely by consensus. There may have been a consensus at one time that the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it a fact.

It may be that facts can be expected to produce a consensus in time, and in discussion one typically only accepts something as a "fact" when it is agreed to by both discussion partners, but it is reality that makes something a fact.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

I have no idea what facts being "minimalist" means, but facts aren't produced merely by consensus. There may have been a consensus at one time that the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it a fact.

It may be that facts can be expected to produce a consensus in time, and in discussion one typically only accepts something as a "fact" when it is agreed to by both discussion partners, but it is reality that makes something a fact.

If you've read the thread and still don't understand what I mean, I can try to explain. But I must say that unless Reality joins the discussion, my guess is that you are only speaking on Reality's behalf. As such, I'll need more than that.

Also, please note I was speaking of historical fact, so your flat earth example doesn't really fit. We would need to examine the case for who believed the earth was flat and why. But I suppose I don't mind too much using it as an example. It is thrown out all the time, but its true history seems buried under a blanket of myth and hyperbole.

Speculation that the earth is a sphere has been around since at least the 6th century BC ... that's our first documented evidence of the idea but maybe it had been considered for much longer. By the 3rd century BC the Greeks had good evidence of it and considered the matter settled. Sure, some continued to speak of a flat earth after that, but this is my point: so what? What was the context of that belief?

The neighborhood in which I live is somewhat hilly. I wouldn't call it flat. Yet I live in the Midwest, which many call flat. So what did ancients mean when they said the world was flat? If they were calling the world flat, it must have been in contrast to something that was less flat than the extents of their known world. The fact of the matter is, given the technology of the time, the distances they could travel, the manner in which they interacted with the land, to the extents most of them could reach - the earth they were familiar with was flat. Over what arc of the earth would they have had to travel before the curvature affected their trajectory? Before that curvature exceeded what they had experienced in the undulations from valley to mountain peak?

If you've ever traveled through South Dakota, saying the earth is flat is an apt description.

For the vast majority of people prior to the 6th century BC, "flat" was an appropriate description of the extents of the earth they knew. Once it was realized the earth was much bigger, and that bigger expanse was spherical, the old understanding hung on - as they often do. My weatherman still speaks of the sun rising. I don't call the TV station to correct him. I understand the context in which he speaks, and in that context it is a fact that the sun rose at 6:52 AM today.

It is inappropriate to apply modern context to ancient statements. It inaccurately makes them look dumber and more naive than they were.

Even today, some may start off when they're very young thinking the earth is flat. They must be allowed to mature and explore - to discover the larger earth is a sphere. Maybe some will never accept it. I doubt they would pass an astronomy class with that attitude, and so astronomers will forever say it is a fact the earth is a sphere. That is the context for that fact that stands against the dissenters. But once you agree to enter a conversation with a dissenter, that context disappears. You've accepted a challenge to revisit the question - to analyze the evidence and see if it holds.

 

[afishamongmany]

Science always involves a test of the objective in one form or another.

My position vis à vis “Science” is that it is best considered as a methodology for obtaining, verifying and collating knowledge. A methodology that is open to all (ie not just those labeled “scientist”) and usable in all domains (ie including history).
There are of course differences between how we find out the facts about the composition of a piece of rock and how we find out the facts about the exploits of Hannibal. But these are not differences that separate history from other sciences. There is no need for us to think that an historical “fact” is intrinsically any different in nature from any other sort of fact. A written text is as much of an object as a lump of rock and there are ways and means of “testing” both. Acid on the rock and examination and analysis of the text in the light of all other accrued knowledge relevant to it. One might also in some cases use physical testing to date a manuscript.

“I can't tell whether Livy was truthful by testing the pH of the ink he used ...”
No but you can by objective, rigorous, examination and analysis decide how much of what he wrote you are going to accept as being factual.

“Facts don't tell a story. There are simply units of data - not even information.”
Ok so I disagree. I just don't understand what the word “fact” means to you.

“If you think otherwise, give me a sample list of facts and the associated historical narrative, and let's see if the first obligates the second.”
Surely it's from Livy's “narrative” (plus of course other “narratives”) that we deduce what we will accept as facts?
I have beside me a copy of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. On one of the white pages at the beginning is a handwritten text.

“In affectionate remembrance of George Cadmore, one of the scholars at Silsen Church Sunday School, who departed this life January 15th 1881, in the 19th year of his age, and was interred at Silsden Church, Jan. 20th.”

I have no problem accepting this inscription as a list of historical facts that tell me a story, without any weaving of a narrative on my part. Of course narratives of varying factuality are woven but isn't it this that differentiates between the best historians and the rest?

I'm inferring, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to want facts to be an absolute truth. Absolute truth requires infinite knowledge, so it is something only God can provide.

Discussion of the term “absolute truth”, as you indicate, belongs in the context of theology, the chief of all sciences. But certainly my understanding of the word “fact” is, something that is true. Absolutely true is ok with me. When we talk about half truths what we usually mean is a mixture of truth and lie.

“Once there is a possibility for error, there can no longer be a singular authority. I can't claim to be the sole proprietor of fact, nor can you. You can conclude I'm not worth convincing - cast me off - work amongst a select group who agrees certain things are facts. But then it would still remain that we disagree on what is fact. So what have you gained? What truth?”
Resha C, what you say above is the reality of this world, our human condition. Going through life we all accumulate our portfolio of facts. I think to some degree most people like to try and convince others and compare other peoples facts with their own but no, no unanimity this side of the resurrection. Of course there has to be at least a minimum of at least some agreed facts for any sort of useful exchange between individuals and groups to happen and none of us are without our “don't knows”.

Your last paragraph with Stephen Hawkin's quote about the theory of everything might make an interesting new thread? Personally I don't follow his reasoning.
Go Well
><>

 

[Resha Caner]

My position vis à vis “Science” is that it is best considered as a methodology for obtaining, verifying and collating knowledge. A methodology that is open to all (ie not just those labeled “scientist”) and usable in all domains (ie including history).

You are mistaken. I suppose what you say may have some lay utility, but it is too casual to be of much use. What you say could be applied to anything, and as a result nothing that anyone says or does could ever be said to be unscientific. The way I use the term implies a rigorous, formal method developed by and for professionals. I would not trust the vehicle put together by someone not trained as an engineer just as I would not allow a doctor to minister to me unless he had the proper degree.

History doesn't carry the life or death magnitude of those examples, but there is good reason for peer review of historical work.

“I can't tell whether Livy was truthful by testing the pH of the ink he used ...”

No but you can by objective, rigorous, examination and analysis decide how much of what he wrote you are going to accept as being factual.

I would question how objective you can be. But, OK. Again, you seem to be thinking only of what you accept. If that's as far as your interest goes, that's fine. But as soon as you involve someone else it becomes something quite different.

“In affectionate remembrance of George Cadmore, one of the scholars at Silsen Church Sunday School, who departed this life January 15th 1881, in the 19th year of his age, and was interred at Silsden Church, Jan. 20th.”

I have no problem accepting this inscription as a list of historical facts that tell me a story, without any weaving of a narrative on my part.

A rather minimal passage, and I would say rather uninteresting. But, what is the story in that passage and what are the facts?

 

[afishamongmany]

What you say could be applied to anything, and as a result nothing that anyone says or does could ever be said to be unscientific. The way I use the term implies a rigorous, formal method developed by and for professionals.

Not at all. I'm saying that science is a methodology that, yes, can be applied to anything. It can be, but more often than not is not. Specific training in specific disciplines, hopefully, leads to proper the application of this methodology. But please no priestly castes having a monopoly on "Science".

Again, you seem to be thinking only of what you accept. If that's as far as your interest goes, that's fine. But as soon as you involve someone else it becomes something quite different.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1445020441508-1'); });

Again not at all. Most of us are interested in what other people think. Maybe especially when it differs from what we think. Our decisions on what we accept or reject as a fact (or to say, Don't know) always involves input from and reaction with other people.
Go well
><>

 

[Resha Caner]

Not at all. I'm saying that science is a methodology that, yes, can be applied to anything. It can be, but more often than not is not. Specific training in specific disciplines, hopefully, leads to proper the application of this methodology. But please no priestly castes having a monopoly on "Science".

You're making a judgment that others don't apply this method you speak of. What justifies that judgment?

You may not like the "priestly castes" but unless a discipline is formalized, judgments of whether someone has or hasn't properly applied a method are merely opinion. Again, in the lay community you can accept and reject "fact" as you please. But if you want to label something as "scientific" or "historical" with any degree of credibility, you must meet the requirements of said caste and receive their blessing ... an exercise in consensus.

Of course such things are sometimes unfair, and they tend to protect the status quo rather than seek the new (Kuhn's whole thing about revolutions), but that's the way it is. Frustrating as it may be, no one has found a better idea.

Again not at all. Most of us are interested in what other people think. Maybe especially when it differs from what we think. Our decisions on what we accept or reject as a fact (or to say, Don't know) always involves input from and reaction with other people.

So, with all these people accepting and rejecting different "facts", what makes you think any of them are "truth"? ...

... Given how you clipped my last post, it seems your interest in the topic is waning. That's fine. I don't want to press you to the point of irritation. But as long as you want to keep discussing the matter we can.

 

[lesliedellow]

Given that a "fact" is a true statement about reality, I can't recognize any of it as factual, because I can't currently determine the above to be true. If it is all true, then those facts don't rely on a consensus of belief to be facts.

Are you asking about the nature of belief in a proposed fact rather than the fact itself?

You have a somewhat absolutist idea of "fact". Two hundred years ago everybody "knew" that combustion involved the release of phlogiston, today we "know" that it involves a process of oxidation. So what will they "know" in another two hundred years with regard to the same phenomenon? We may believe that we have extremely good reasons for believing what we believe, but they thought the same two centuries ago.

 

[durangodawood]

"Fact", in actual use, means something we mostly agree is correct, and has stood the test of time.
(The test of time is not foolproof, though).

 

[afishamongmany]

AF- Not at all. I'm saying that science is a methodology that, yes, can be applied to anything. It can be, but more often than not is not. Specific training in specific disciplines, hopefully, leads to proper the application of this methodology. But please no priestly castes having a monopoly on "Science".
RC- You're making a judgment that others don't apply this method you speak of. What justifies that judgment?
AF- Its not a judgment in the sense of judgmental just a philosophical observation. All I was saying is that most people do not always and totally use rigorous scientific methodology in making their decisions nor in coming to their consensuses. I was not particularly speaking of “the priests”.

RC- You may not like the "priestly castes" but unless a discipline is formalized, judgments of whether someone has or hasn't properly applied a method are merely opinion.
AF- I've no problem with discipline or formalisation but “priests castes” is something else. Are you saying that “the laity” are excluded from making judgments on priestly pronouncements because “the methods” can only be understood by “the priests”? History has much to teach us about this mind set.

RC- Again, in the lay community you can accept and reject "fact" as you please. But if you want to label something as "scientific" or "historical" with any degree of credibility, you must meet the requirements of said caste and receive their blessing ... an exercise in consensus.
AF- In the context of this discussion the label we are looking to apply is “factual”. I'm happy with “historical” as a synonym but not with “scientific”. So, say that I have priestly cred and their blessing and the consensus is with me and I am with it, this is still not what makes a fact a fact. Hispaniola was a fact long before Columbus set foot there and that the sun revolves around the earth was not a fact even when there was a consensus that it was.

Consensus like it's cousin democracy can be a good and useful modus operandi for us humans to get along and get things done but they both have serious limitations and should never be allowed to become sacred cows.

RC- Of course such things are sometimes unfair, and they tend to protect the status quo rather than the new (Kuhn's whole thing about revolutions), but that's the way it is. Frustrating as it may be, no one has found a better idea.
AF- Not sure why you have brought “unfairness” to the table unless you saying it's unfair that everyone can't be a priest? Just as I believe in the priesthood of all christian believers I also believe in the “priesthood” of all humanity in the temple of learning and understanding.

RC- So, with all these people accepting and rejecting different "facts", what makes you think any of them are "truth"? …
AF- Resha, hopefully in “all these people” you are including yourself. Engineers, historians, poets, priests we all go through life trying to sort out the facts from the fictions. Speaking personally what I hold to be “facts” at this moment comes from; information from sources I trust, the testing of life's experience, logical reasoning, cross-referencing, comparisons, good old trail and error, etc.. But most important of all by the grace of Him who is The Truth I have the confidence to know that facts are always facts even when I have got them wrong. And of course, as I've said before, along with our (we believe) sorted facts and fictions we all carry a load of “maybes” and “don't knows”.

RC- ... Given how you clipped my last post, it seems your interest in the topic is waning. That's fine. I don't want to press you to the point of irritation. But as long as you want to keep discussing the matter we can.

AF- Hope this post wasn't too clipped for you Resha . No my interest burns ever bright but probably, yes, we've squeezed out the best of the juice. In our small way we have been trying to get to grips with important stuff. As the Governor of Judea said to the Lord of Glory, “What is truth?”

Go well
><>

 

[Resha Caner]

I've no problem with discipline or formalisation but “priests castes” is something else. Are you saying that “the laity” are excluded from making judgments on priestly pronouncements because “the methods” can only be understood by “the priests”?

In a sense, yes. I'm not sure what derision you're trying to communicate by referring to the "priestly castes". If you mean people shouldn't be excluded from a profession when they are capable, I would agree. But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. I'll use my example of the medical doctor again. I have no faith that the laity can cure cancer. If a doctor says I need chemotherapy, but some guy with a fake diploma says I just need to swing a dead cat at midnight, I'd be bringing charges for malpractice. So exactly what judgments do you think the laity should be making?

Are you saying history is different than these other professions (doctor, engineer, etc.) and doesn't require training? That the laity are equally capable even without the training?

So, say that I have priestly cred and their blessing and the consensus is with me and I am with it, this is still not what makes a fact a fact. Hispaniola was a fact long before Columbus set foot there and that the sun revolves around the earth was not a fact even when there was a consensus that it was.

So what? That's what I've been trying to ask. You think we have these facts floating around out there somewhere, but no one can tell if they're facts or not. Great. Of what use is that? What does it gain you to believe that? I don't understand why you're trying to hang on to "facts" being absolutely true. I do know that for some people, they feel if they let go of such a belief they're in the position of asking: "Well, then what can I believe? Nothing." That's not the case, however.

Or, if all you're saying is that we need to accept that we might be wrong, I've agreed with that all along.

But your terminology has a problem:
1) As I understand it, the term you use for the historical things that, as best we can tell, happened, but we could possible be wrong is: fact
2) As I understand it, the term you use for things that are absolutely true is: fact

The same word is describing 2 different things. I would prefer 2 words, so I use "fact" for #1 and "truth" for #2. Or if you want to apply some adjectives, calling #1 "historical fact" and #2 "absolute fact" would be fine as well. But you need some way to distinguish them.