Hi Rhonda,

Quote Originally Posted by RhondaRShearer View Post
If facts were so unreliable and unpredictable as you and others may be suggesting here, science and technology as we know it would be impossible.
Just a couple of quick notes on this point.

First, Newtonian (and most other "natural laws") are based on a Baconian understanding of science, i.e. a probabilistic stance. All this means is that the results are not 100% certain, although they may be 99.99999% based on previous observations. The reliability of a process is the latter number.

Second, "facts" should be distinguished between observations and processes. Individual observations may be categorized using a crisp set typology - "Did it (the event) happen? Yes / No" - while processes require a more subtle question - "Did it (the process as we predicted) happen in this case? Yes / No / Maybe".

Third, the English word "fact" comes from the Latin "factum"; "made" or "constructed". "Facts" are constructed by our consciousness by a process of abstraction of sensory input from objective reality and always include a component of limited understanding. As our understanding, our models of objective reality and the languages (including mathematics) that we use to describe these models alter, so does their predictive validity. You mentioned Newtonian Laws; well, don't forget that they start to break down at ~.3C.

Fourth, "facts", in the sense of individual observations, can and should be used to establish both plausibilities and probabilities (they tend to be asserted in some other systems). It all depends on which logical system(s) a science is using in any particular case, and there are often problems with confusing systems of logic, what "facts" should be associated with each, and how those "facts" may/can/should be used.

This may sound like I'm picking on you, but there are some pretty serious, real world implications. For example, if we assume a (nomonological-)deductive logic system that states, as a fact, that insurgencies arise from poor governance, then counter-insurgency operations will focus their efforts on building governance structures. If we assume an inductive (probabilistic) logical system that states that governance is a factor in insurgencies, then the emphasis will be different. BTW, I chose this example in particular because it related back to the article I linked from your site initially.

Cheers,

Marc