Are facts made or discovered?

[tonyrey]

A notorious difficulty for materialists is the reality of intangibles like facts. They are compelled to regard facts (or truths) as man-made. Yet surely we don’t invent or construct scientific facts we discover them…

(We cause some facts to exist, of course, by our activity but not all facts! Many existed before we did.)

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

A notorious difficulty for materialists is the reality of intangibles like facts. They are compelled to regard facts (or truths) as man-made. Yet surely we don’t invent or construct scientific facts we discover them…

(We cause some facts to exist, of course, by our activity but not all facts! Many existed before we did.)

I think this can be answered by the division of knowledge. Many philosophers divide knowledge into two types: “a priori” and “a posteriori”. “a priori” is knowledge that we seem to know by instinct; it need not be taught. Many have said that maths is an example of a priori knowledge. Some would also say that we all have a priori knowledge of God . . .

a posteriori knowledge is knowledge that has to be discovered. Science is an a posteriori field. We need to continually experiment before we form theories, and then laws, etc.

I would think - even though I am no philosopher - that facts are “discovered” in the sense that they are picked up by our full conciousness. Ever had one of those moments when you learn something new, but in your head you’re thinking “it makes a lot of sense. . .I would have known this otherwise”. I think a lot of facts are like this.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[tonyrey]

I think this can be answered by the division of knowledge. Many philosophers divide knowledge into two types: “a priori” and “a posteriori”. “a priori” is knowledge that we seem to know by instinct; it need not be taught. Many have said that maths is an example of a priori knowledge. Some would also say that we all have a priori knowledge of God . . .

a posteriori knowledge is knowledge that has to be discovered. Science is an a posteriori field. We need to continually experiment before we form theories, and then laws, etc.

I would think - even though I am no philosopher - that facts are “discovered” in the sense that they are picked up by our full consciousness. Ever had one of those moments when you learn something new, but in your head you’re thinking “it makes a lot of sense. . .I would have known this otherwise”. I think a lot of facts are like this.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

A good answer! Both types of knowledge presuppose that facts exist independently - even if we are unaware of them.

 

[Cecilianus]

“The world is composed of facts, not things” - so insofar as the world exists independently of us and is discovered by us, facts are discovered.

Insofar as our brains need to interpret the world in order for us to understand it, there is some psychological construction going on (and this includes whatever construction goes on in a Kantian or Schellingian sense - which I’m going to remain agnostic on for a few more years at least), and therefore there is a sense in which facts are “discovered”. Best example is obviously mathematics, which is paradoxically both discovered and invented at the same time.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“The world is composed of facts, not things” - so insofar as the world exists independently of us and is discovered by us, facts are discovered.

A thing is a fact.

 

[tonyrey]

A thing is a fact.

It is a fact that there is a thing but it is not a thing that there is a fact!
We know facts about things but we don’t know things (in themselves).

 

[tonyrey]

“The world is composed of facts, not things” - so insofar as the world exists independently of us and is discovered by us, facts are discovered.

Insofar as our brains need to interpret the world in order for us to understand it, there is some psychological construction going on (and this includes whatever construction goes on in a Kantian or Schellingian sense - which I’m going to remain agnostic on for a few more years at least), and therefore there is a sense in which facts are “discovered”. Best example is obviously mathematics, which is paradoxically both discovered and invented at the same time.

I think we discover the basic principles of logic and mathematics but we invent rules and applications of those principles for our own purposes.

 

[hatsoff]

A notorious difficulty for materialists is the reality of intangibles like facts. They are compelled to regard facts (or truths) as man-made. Yet surely we don’t invent or construct scientific facts we discover them…

(We cause some facts to exist, of course, by our activity but not all facts! Many existed before we did.)

I agree that materialists indeed have trouble accounting for facts and other intangibles. But their problem seems to me to have nothing to do with whether we invent them or discover them (or both, which is my position). Nor does the temporal appeal help, suggesting that facts (which are a kind of statement) existed before we did (i.e. before we made any statements). Rather, their problem stems from the fact that their materialism compels them to hold that either facts do not exist, or else that they are physical objects. Both of these positions run contrary to our experience.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is a fact that there is a thing but it is not a thing that there is a fact!
We know facts about things but we don’t know things (in themselves).

It depends on what you mean by facts. When it comes to ontological objectivity, a fact describes things. There can be no facts with out things since it is by things that we know facts. An idea is a thing; an abstraction, however abstract it may be, is a thing. Thus a fact must be a thing, otherwise it would be no-thing and thus would not be fact since there would be nothing for a fact to be about. Not all things are physical things however. It is impossible for there to be a true objective ontological fact of nothingness.

 

[Cecilianus]

A thing is a fact.

My understanding of what Wittgenstein was saying is that one can subdivide our knowledge of the world in units as small as basic statements, or “things” in particular irreducible situations (or what an Aristotelian might call substances with all of their accidents, including their environment). In this sense a “thing” would be a fact divorced from its setting.

In other words, the world around me right now is not composed of a computer, a coffee-pot, a microwave, and a breadbasket (even though these all happen to be objects in front of me) - all of these objects could in be all sorts of different places and positions and arrangements and situations. Rather, the world is composed of the following facts:

-I am typing on the computer.
-A coffeepot sits on the bar.
-A microwave is lodged in the east wall.
-A closed breadbasket is on the counter.

One’s possible objection that these “logical atoms” are not independent and irreducible is a weakness in logical atomism, but I still think that sentence - “the world is composed of facts, not things” - holds true.

 

[tonyrey]

A notorious difficulty for materialists is the reality of intangibles like facts. They are compelled to regard facts (or truths) as man-made. Yet surely we don’t invent or construct scientific facts we discover

I agree with your first and last points but I believe the objective existence of facts is a problem for materialists. The difficulty arises from the fact (!) that facts do not presuppose the existence of knowledge. If they did total ignorance would imply that nothing exists! In other words the truth is not determined by what we believe…

 

[Cecilianus]

tonyrey, I usually hear the term “materialism” to mean just the idea that only material reality exists. How does this idea compel one to believe that facts are man-made? I regard myself as partially a materialist, since I believe that the physical world is only composed of and explainable in terms of material reality (though I admit the existence or at least the possibility of a spiritual - God, angels, etc. - and the intersection of both in the form of man). And I don’t see how these purely physical “facts” must be man-made - they just are there because they’re there. Reality exists whether we’re there to know about it or not (and if we’re not there to know about it, then we don’t care which eigenstate we find it in, so this is even true under quantum mechanics).

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Nor does the temporal appeal help, suggesting that facts (which are a kind of statement) existed before we did (i.e. before we made any statements).

I disagree with this. Well kind of… It is a little ambiguous. I will replace “facts” with “concepts” because I think we have had this discussion before. Obviously, neither person changed their belief.

A concept has to precede the thought or the statement. Did the concept “gravity makes this rock go down when I throw it up” exist before we made the concept? What about the first wars with bows and arrows? Did they wonder why they had to aim a little up before letting go? Maybe they wondered why or maybe not a thought to it was conceived. The reality was there either way.

Take the first human being whether by evolution or not (I could personally care less which)… Let us call him… Ohhhh… Adam. Adam is thirsty but has never made a statement about water. He goes to water and drink and is not thirsty. The reality existed before our thought to it.

Did the concept of weather exist before a thought or statement existed? Yes. Take the ant who moves to a warm place for winter weeks (or perhaps months) in advance to the confusion of scientists. According to evolution, natural selection (concept) existed without a thought to it during its time before humans.

Did the quantity “1” exist before us? The tiger needed 1 (concept) deer to feed his kitties (what is the word for baby tigers?). Maybe even “feeding” in itself is a concept.

Anyway, back to my original these. The concept exist whether or not we think it and, therefore, before any statement is made about it. I have no idea if I am making any sense. Am I? If you think I am wrong, fine but is what I am saying making any sense?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Both, because what one may think may change to be made a fact.

Things we don’t know are discovered.

 

[tonyrey]

I usually hear the term “materialism” to mean just the idea that only material reality exists. How does this idea compel one to believe that facts are man-made?

Because facts are not material objects!

I regard myself as partially a materialist, since I believe that the physical world is only composed of and explainable in terms of material reality (though I admit the existence or at least the possibility of a spiritual - God, angels, etc. - and the intersection of both in the form of man).

The possibility is not enough for an orthodox Christian who necessarily believes in spiritual reality…

And I don’t see how these purely physical “facts” must be man-made - they just are there because they’re there.

The facts are there but they are intangible, not physical.

Reality exists whether we’re there to know about it or not (and if we’re not there to know about it, then we don’t care which eigenstate we find it in, so this is even true under quantum mechanics).

That is certainly true - and reality is not composed solely of material objects.

 

[tonyrey]

Both, because what one may think may change to be made a fact.

Indeed.

Things we don’t know are discovered.

Or invented **and **discovered- as when some one happens to invent something by chance.

I should add that new facts are constantly appearing but facts never disappear! They cannot be destroyed. Once a fact always a fact…

 

[Cecilianus]

Because facts are not material objects!

The facts are there but they are intangible, not physical.

Fair enough - but facts are the result of physical objects in physical situations. Which really does preserve materialism, because material objects are the only things in the physical world.

Sound right to you?

 

[tonyrey]

Fair enough - but facts are the result of physical objects in physical situations. Which really does preserve materialism, because material objects are the only things in the physical world.

Sound right to you?

Yes - apart from the fact (sorry, I’ll start again!). - although we are more than things!
There are facts related to intangible entities like persons.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes - apart from the fact (sorry, I’ll start again!). - although we are more than things!
There are facts related to intangible entities like persons.

Metaphysically speaking, surely, to be a thing is merely to express existence; that it is not a “no-thing”. There is no higher order. A person is a thing. God is a thing. Why am I not correct?

 

[Cecilianus]

Metaphysically speaking, surely, to be a thing is merely to express existence; that it is not a “no-thing”. There is no higher order. A person is a thing. God is a thing. Why am I not correct?

I wouldn’t call either God or a person a “thing”; it’s just how the English language works.