Evaluating Risk

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Schrodinger's fact: as none of us (even gerry) have a way of knowing if he had coffee this morning, until proof is found, it is both a fact and not a fact that gerry had coffee this morning.

 

[jobo]

Schrodinger's fact: as none of us (even gerry) have a way of knowing if he had coffee this morning, until proof is found, it is both a fact and not a fact that gerry had coffee this morning.

that's a misunderstanding of schrodinger message. in which he was mocking the idea that things exist in a superposition of states, until the act of observation or measurement calapse the wave function and force it to choose on reality or another. as gerry presumably observed his coffee being drunk or not being drunk, he would have collapsed the wave function at that point. further proof at this time would not changethat out come as the superpostion of states was resolved some hours ago

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

that's a misunderstanding of schrodinger message. in which he was mocking the idea that things exist in a superposition of states, until the act of observation or measurement calapse the wave function and force it to choose on reality or another. as gerry presumably observed his coffee being drunk or not being drunk, he would have collapsed the wave function at that point. further proof at this time would not changethat out come as the superpostion of states was resolved some hours ago

Yup, I'm aware schrodinger was trying to mock the thing he accidentally helped popularize. And that this isn't a 1 to 1 comparison of the two. I was making a joke.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it's a fact i cant,verify I'm several thousand miles away, however it isn't a fact than can't be verified , though possibly not now as it's to latI. as the window for verification has now past it is not a fact, you have nothing to rely on but a hazy memory. memories and facts are not at all the same thing. and truth and fact are not the same thing, truth is just your memory of an event, a fact as hopefully we have now establish is something that can be verified by something else other than your memory

It would have been too late at the time I posted that, originally.

My point is just that things don't cease to be facts simply because we don't know they are facts. Something can be facts to those who know them, and undetermined as fact for someone else.

You are correct that truth and fact are not the same thing. I don't think you're correct that truth is your memory of a thing - that can in fact be a non-accurate memory (in fact, it's almost guaranteed to be inaccurate in some way), so memory may be neither truth (except insofar as it's true that's your memory) nor fact (except insofar as it's a fact that's what you remember). Truth and fact are related, but not quite synonymous. Whatever my memory of the event, however, the facts don't change depending upon whether a specific person can verify them or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

that's a misunderstanding of schrodinger message. in which he was mocking the idea that things exist in a superposition of states, until the act of observation or measurement calapse the wave function and force it to choose on reality or another. as gerry presumably observed his coffee being drunk or not being drunk, he would have collapsed the wave function at that point. further proof at this time would not changethat out come as the superpostion of states was resolved some hours ago

Collapsed wave functions make coffee taste better. I always add at least two, right after the cream.

 

[drop bear]

It would have been too late at the time I posted that, originally.

My point is just that things don't cease to be facts simply because we don't know they are facts. Something can be facts to those who know them, and undetermined as fact for someone else.

You are correct that truth and fact are not the same thing. I don't think you're correct that truth is your memory of a thing - that can in fact be a non-accurate memory (in fact, it's almost guaranteed to be inaccurate in some way), so memory may be neither truth (except insofar as it's true that's your memory) nor fact (except insofar as it's a fact that's what you remember). Truth and fact are related, but not quite synonymous. Whatever my memory of the event, however, the facts don't change depending upon whether a specific person can verify them or not.

I really think they do. You would need to verify a fact or it is an anecdote.

An anecdote can be true. But is not a fact without evidence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I really think they do. You would need to verify a fact or it is an anecdote.

An anecdote can be true. But is not a fact without evidence.

That's the missing distinction, db. I may not know it is fact, but it's a fact, anyway. I just can't use it as such without some verification.

It does depend which definition of fact you use, though. I found one that supports what you and @jobo are saying (from Google):

• "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

By this definition, a fact is a fact to the individual who knows it to be true. These two are closer to my argument (from Merriam-Webster):

• "something that has actual existence" (space exploration is now a fact)
• "an actual occurrence" (prove the fact of damage)

So the first one depends upon whether we know it to be true or not, while the other is objective: something is a fact if it occurred, not being dependent upon our knowledge.

 

[drop bear]

That's the missing distinction, db. I may not know it is fact, but it's a fact, anyway. I just can't use it as such without some verification.

It does depend which definition of fact you use, though. I found one that supports what you and @jobo are saying (from Google):

• "a thing that is known or proved to be true".

By this definition, a fact is a fact to the individual who knows it to be true. These two are closer to my argument (from Merriam-Webster):

• "something that has actual existence" (space exploration is now a fact)
• "an actual occurrence" (prove the fact of damage)

So the first one depends upon whether we know it to be true or not, while the other is objective: something is a fact if it occurred, not being dependent upon our knowledge.

Ok. So I gave your statement to one of my coaches who is trained in logic. And absolutely a guy you should train with if you ever come to Australia.

His response.

"Ok.. so..

Truth is analytic, so generally it applies to propositions..

Truth is usually a quality of propositions

There are ‘kinds’ of truth

For example a truth can be conditional

“Today is Sunday” is false

But there will be conditions where that will be true


Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

So in science it would go in this order

Hypothesis,
Speculation really

Then fact,
Empirical observation

Example, fish species a swims better in 29 degree water then 30 degree water

Inferences are greater then fact, but can be wrong, inference have the ability of prediction, they are considered higher then fact because multiple facts are required to make an inference

Example

Fact 1
Fish x survive better in 29 degrees

Fact 2
Pond 1 is 32 degrees

Fact 3
Pond 2 is 29 degrees

Inference,
Fish x will survive better in pond 2 then pond 1

Then above fact you have laws, like the law of gravity, it is true across all times and is completely consistent

Then above law you have.. believe it or not theory
(When people say ‘that’s just a theory’ they mean to say, ‘that’s just a hypothesis’)
Theories require multiple laws, and sometimes inferences between laws

Example
The theory of relativity describes and contains many laws


Don’t quote me on this one, I think if it’s a priori (usually maths) they are called Theroms
Eg, a triangle has 3 sides
And if they are a posteriori they are usually empirical

So science uses models to describe the natural world

Logic uses deduction from premises to conclusions
(Though premise are not usually deductive, they usually use inductive or analogical reasoning for example)

So if you think of a word like necessary, it’s an analytical word, if something is necessary, it means for it not to be true there is a contradiction..

My brother is male is necessarily TRUE because if it was false, there would be a contradiction

So terms like ‘true’ typically are analytical, so they are logical in nature, they refer to reasoning using mathematical deduction

And terms like Fact are scientific in nature, they refer to empirical observations

Colloquially, they are all misused

But.. in conclusion you’re a right

To bring ‘memory’ into it makes it more stupid and nonsensical.. You’re then in the field of cognitive science, you’re talking about the equipment we see the work through

Challenging memory is like saying the telescope is broken in science

Propositions need to be falsifiable in science..

10 mins ago, the whole world was created, including your memories, including historical facts.. you can’t falsify it, not can you verify it

Clams about memory should be made in the fields cognitive science, psychology, philosophy of mind, maybe law

Claims about truth should be made in the field of logic

Claims about facts belong to science"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. So I gave your statement to one of my coaches who is trained in logic. And absolutely a guy you should train with if you ever come to Australia.

His response.

"Ok.. so..

Truth is analytic, so generally it applies to propositions..

Truth is usually a quality of propositions

There are ‘kinds’ of truth

For example a truth can be conditional

“Today is Sunday” is false

But there will be conditions where that will be true


Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

So in science it would go in this order

Hypothesis,
Speculation really

Then fact,
Empirical observation

Example, fish species a swims better in 29 degree water then 30 degree water

Inferences are greater then fact, but can be wrong, inference have the ability of prediction, they are considered higher then fact because multiple facts are required to make an inference

Example

Fact 1
Fish x survive better in 29 degrees

Fact 2
Pond 1 is 32 degrees

Fact 3
Pond 2 is 29 degrees

Inference,
Fish x will survive better in pond 2 then pond 1

Then above fact you have laws, like the law of gravity, it is true across all times and is completely consistent

Then above law you have.. believe it or not theory
(When people say ‘that’s just a theory’ they mean to say, ‘that’s just a hypothesis’)
Theories require multiple laws, and sometimes inferences between laws

Example
The theory of relativity describes and contains many laws


Don’t quote me on this one, I think if it’s a priori (usually maths) they are called Theroms
Eg, a triangle has 3 sides
And if they are a posteriori they are usually empirical

So science uses models to describe the natural world

Logic uses deduction from premises to conclusions
(Though premise are not usually deductive, they usually use inductive or analogical reasoning for example)

So if you think of a word like necessary, it’s an analytical word, if something is necessary, it means for it not to be true there is a contradiction..

My brother is male is necessarily TRUE because if it was false, there would be a contradiction

So terms like ‘true’ typically are analytical, so they are logical in nature, they refer to reasoning using mathematical deduction

And terms like Fact are scientific in nature, they refer to empirical observations

Colloquially, they are all misused

But.. in conclusion you’re a right

To bring ‘memory’ into it makes it more stupid and nonsensical.. You’re then in the field of cognitive science, you’re talking about the equipment we see the work through

Challenging memory is like saying the telescope is broken in science

Propositions need to be falsifiable in science..

10 mins ago, the whole world was created, including your memories, including historical facts.. you can’t falsify it, not can you verify it

Clams about memory should be made in the fields cognitive science, psychology, philosophy of mind, maybe law

Claims about truth should be made in the field of logic

Claims about facts belong to science"

I like his explanation. It uses yet a different definition of the term "fact". We have to acknowledge there are multiple definitions, and they can vary wildly. The definitions used in formal disciplines are often much different from the common usage. The term "theory" is a good example of this. If I say I have a theory about something, it can mean something quite different if I'm just saying "I have a theory about why the team lost" or I say (in a group of scientists), "I have a theory that explains the collapse of waveforms on observation".

So, while he's not wrong, the definition of "fact" used in formal logic is not necessarily common usage. While we exercise logic, we don't have to use the formal terminology folks trained in the field are using.

All that said, I'm quite enjoying this education. Thanks!

 

[dvcochran]

I like his explanation. It uses yet a different definition of the term "fact". We have to acknowledge there are multiple definitions, and they can vary wildly. The definitions used in formal disciplines are often much different from the common usage. The term "theory" is a good example of this. If I say I have a theory about something, it can mean something quite different if I'm just saying "I have a theory about why the team lost" or I say (in a group of scientists), "I have a theory that explains the collapse of waveforms on observation".

So, while he's not wrong, the definition of "fact" used in formal logic is not necessarily common usage. While we exercise logic, we don't have to use the formal terminology folks trained in the field are using.

All that said, I'm quite enjoying this education. Thanks!

I thought is was pretty spot on. Empirical evidence and all. It is what I am accustomed to in the working world. I don't like the idea that it is ok to have different definitions for words like fact. It really grey's the purpose of the word.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I thought is was pretty spot on. Empirical evidence and all. It is what I am accustomed to in the working world. I don't like the idea that it is ok to have different definitions for words like fact. It really grey's the purpose of the word.

But there are different definitions, that's the reality. Some are just nuanced versions of the same thing, but the real point of this discussion has been that there are two conflicting definitions (and I was able to find both in common dictionaries). That's true of many words and terms - especially where they are in common use and part of the jargon of a professional group (scientists, philosophers, lawyers, etc.).

 

[jobo]

But there are different definitions, that's the reality. Some are just nuanced versions of the same thing, but the real point of this discussion has been that there are two conflicting definitions (and I was able to find both in common dictionaries). That's true of many words and terms - especially where they are in common use and part of the jargon of a professional group (scientists, philosophers, lawyers, etc.).

but even if you accept the widest possible definition of fact, people generally commonly misuse it. I've had lots and lots of people ( my x wife for one)tell me for a fact there is petrol in their car, when there isn't, there belief that there is is not a fact, even though they know it's true .they are just wrong, what they mean is they have no explanation for why there isn't ,which is the commonly because their memory or fuel gauge can't be trusted,

, vast amounts of time and trouble could be saved if they just said I don't know, if I say are you actually sure they get cross and ask if I think they are an idiot, the answer to which when I have tracked out 10 miles to tow them home and they had a spare gallon in the boot is yes, I do think their an idiot.

or they confuse fact and opinion, it may be a fact they put twenty pounds in last Thursday, but it's only an opinion ( quite possibly an opinion reached through logic but still not a fact) that there is 5 pounds worth left today and they really should have trusted the red line on the fuel gauge

 

[Buka]

The more you run over Schrödinger's cat, the flatter it gets. Or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but even if you accept the widest possible definition of fact, people generally commonly misuse it. I've had lots and lots of people ( my x wife for one)tell me for a fact there is petrol in their car, when there isn't, there belief that there is is not a fact, even though they know it's true .they are just wrong, what they mean is they have no explanation for why there isn't ,which is the commonly because their memory or fuel gauge can't be trusted,

That's kind of in line with my original point. Things don't become facts because someone "knows" them to be true. And they don't stop being facts because someone doesn't know them to be true. Of course, that's still using the definition I started with.

, vast amounts of time and trouble could be saved if they just said I don't know, if I say are you actually sure they get cross and ask if I think they are an idiot, the answer to which when I have tracked out 10 miles to tow them home and they had a spare gallon in the boot is yes, I do think their an idiot.

or they confuse fact and opinion, it may be a fact they put twenty pounds in last Thursday, but it's only an opinion ( quite possibly an opinion reached through logic but still not a fact) that there is 5 pounds worth left today and they really should have trusted the red line on the fuel gauge

 

[punisher73]

DB wrote: Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

This is part of the problem. In the above statement, the car is not really red. It APPEARS red because of how the light is absorbed and reflected back to the eye. Change the light source and the "color" changes because it is reflected differently (one reason why witnesses say a car was a much different color when identifying it than it appeared to be, streetlights etc. change the perception of what they saw). So, in many cases, a "fact" as you used it in this definition is incumbent upon a certain perspective and perception filter that may differ for different people.

 

[jobo]

DB wrote: Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

This is part of the problem. In the above statement, the car is not really red. It APPEARS red because of how the light is absorbed and reflected back to the eye. Change the light source and the "color" changes because it is reflected differently (one reason why witnesses say a car was a much different color when identifying it than it appeared to be, streetlights etc. change the perception of what they saw). So, in many cases, a "fact" as you used it in this definition is incumbent upon a certain perspective and perception filter that may differ for different people.

that's not really a sound point, colour is always to do with the reflectivity of the object to certain waves lengths, with out that there is no colour at all ,as fact a car is most definitely red, as you can compare it with a colour chart as a source of verification. the sky on the other hand is not blue, as there is no sky no matter what colour you think it is ,also a fact.

if you have a group of witnesses,to an event depending on their memories , you will not get the same " facts" from them, the more witnesses you have the less certain you can be what happened to who , by the what and when .

in fact the surest way of spotting colusion, is that they all agree with the fundamentals ,

I had an unfortunate accident in my car, by the time the police showed up, I'd convinced three witnesses , that they had seen a big black dog run across in front of me, I told one , he told the others, then they all agreed they saw the dog and gave a detailed description of it, it's appearance , it's speed and it's direction ,people are so easy to manipulate