This one comes from long introspection. Over the course of my career, I’ve been involved in sufficient debates and arguments where a misinterpretation of semantics has lead to difficulty in communication. I try to be very precise in choice of language and generally demand that others do the same. Any student of mathematics ought to appreciate the value of accurate semantics, and interpretation of data. However, not everyone is a mathematician, and predicate logic isn’t for everyone.
Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet someone whose opinion I value highly, and someone I hold in high regard in terms of intellect. Those discussions helped me formulate this with precision.
Regular readers will know that I frequently do change my opinions and definitions, or the premises upon which I build arguments. Therefore, if this conflicts with any previous posts, I would be glad to have that pointed out to me, as a reminder that I am in fact, learning.
I’ve been in plenty of debates where I try to get my opponent to state their premises. In many cases, they find me rude for interrupting them, because when I find a premise inaccurate, flawed, or misstated, I feel the need to get that clarified (and I forsee the need to write a post on how a good premise build up could make arguments efficient.) In many cases, premises are assumed to be facts (or at least, in a good argument they should be.)
So what is fact? I’ve heard plenty of opinions. I’ve heard people say, “What is fact for you, may not be fact for others.”
I think it’s worth dedicating a paragraph to clarify that fact is not Truth. Truth is best left for philosophers, and perhaps even theologists. While it is common that mathematical truth is based on fact, we shall not open that can of worms here.
Going back to what fact is. I must heavily insist that I disagree with the comment, “What is fact for you, may not be fact for others.”
For one, if that were true, there would never be progress in the debate, and there would be no point in holding a debate. As I understand it, a debate operates on information that is an order higher than fact. It operates on two things: Interpretation of fact, and Opinion. I won’t go into analyzing opinion here.
After various attempt at defining fact, I arrived at a definition that fits the need quite snugly – Fact is observation (as in a scientific experimental observation.) There is a reason fact may not be truth – and that’s because the observation process may contain a flaw.
First lets look at whether it satisfies the rigorous requirements of building a premise.
1. An observation is, to put it in terms of signal processing, an ‘impulse response’. An observation is the effect a process has on a quantity you can measure. An observation is, whether correct or incorrect, indisputable by parties in an argument. Let me explain. If we were debating why a certain number of jobs are reduced, we may disagree on the reason of decline, however, our observation cannot change.
2. If the observation does change based on who is making the observation, it is all the better. Now we reach the very depths of predicate logic. The reason some arguments seem to go around in “circles” is not because two parties have incompatible observations, but because different parties have incompatible processes to make those observations. The power of defining fact as an observation comes into forcing both parties to agree on the process used to make the observation. You may argue that such deep definitions are irrelevant for a debate. I disagree. I argue that almost all debates are very simple and can follow simple First-Order-Predicate-Logic if we agreed on our observations. The real debate is in the details – can we agree on observation? Here we reach an opinion (and my job ends.)
So why this clarification? I strongly believe, and have observed, that many of the truths we cling to depend on our personal convenience (misquoting Obi-Wan a bit.) We try to appear to debate on a higher-order plane because it is a convenient arena where interpretations and opinions can be inserted without premises.
You can’t really disagree with observation. You can disagree with the process used to make the observation. A classic example is clinical trials. Common arguments about drug-approval testing go, “While the FDA thinks the drug is unfit for use, they don’t know the whole story.”
The fact of the matter is, the FDA isn’t interested in the whole story. They know the story they care about. Their process is well-documented and available for peer review. It is open to criticism and suggestions for improvement. Whether or not that process is followed for a certain clinical trial is also a matter of opinion (and to a large extent quantifiable.) However, having raised no objections to the process of the trial, nor any concerns regarding its execution, there really isn’t a different observation you can arrive at, and therefore, the fact cannot change for you.
A final question I want to address is, “Is observation good enough?” Observation is the “effect” a process is having on a measurable quantity. That is what I meant by ‘impulse response’ in DSP terms. Observation is all we really have. Almost all of science depends on observation. Do not misinterpret observation as ‘seeing’ (as in, ‘to see’.) Observation is quite literally measurement of an effect. When we observe gravity, we observe the effect gravity has on an object (change of force, shape, etc.) Even if you strive for truth, you will end up at a dead-end – observation.
