Wikipedia
and
Wiktionary
entries
Philosophy consists of Logic, Metaphysics, Ethics and other value judgments.
Philosophy, which began, historically, as the quest for the right way of life, therefore includes questions of values including but not limited to Ethics or Morality. Seeing as how among those important values are often included clarity, Philosophy also includes Logic. And, as, for some, the quest for the right way of life includes or requires investigation of the world we live in, this gave rise to Natural Philosophy, that which today we call science.
But that only begs all manner of questions as to the best way to conduct such investigation. Hence, the Philosophy of science, including Metaphysics herein concisely defined is in context and usage pertinent to rationalistic Philosophy of Science.
Indeed, the Metaphysics
herein concisely defined is in context and usage pertinent to Rationalistic
Philosophy of Science, as distinct from the dizzying
broader range of usage
and convictions, particularly as may pertain to subjects that are putatively
existent or mysteriously functioning beyond the physical world.
Now, the subject matter or application of the
broader range of usage
and convictions particularly as may pertain to subjects that are putatively
existent or mysteriously functioning beyond the physical world, of
the term 'Metaphysics' is admissible to Metaphysics
as more concisely defined in context and usage pertinent to Rationalistic
Philosophy of Science, or, to put it more concisely, Rationalistic Metaphysics, in that no conjecture, however groundless, is ever
forbidden.
Hence, however possibly actually
motivated, controversy
between Rationalism and the entire range of opposition there to, generally tends to be
Epistemological
and Methodological.
Indeed, any sheer illogic, regardless of source and vintage, may ever thereby
become subject to
criticism,
fault-finding and controversy,
of course for purposes of bringing to light invalidating circuitous reasoning
and self contradiction, but also in order to make alternative non mechanistic conjectures as to
the very nature of Logic, including being and causality, adequately explicit.
Because, again, all conjecture is permissible, however extreme. But then lucid presentation remains all the more crucial.
However, even in context and usage pertinent to Rationalistic Philosophy of Science, there nevertheless remain two distinct senses of the word 'Metaphysics', because the suffix 'Meta' here is employed both in a somewhat different denotation both of 'beyond' and also in the sense of 'pertaining to' as aspects or application of Metaphysics.
Ontological questions of objective reality are pursued Epistemologically. But objective reality, which is the domain of Ontology, also still includes that which is not Epistemologically accessible or knowable, at least by us, as yet.
And accordingly, since an hypothesis, to be scientific, must be testable and conceivably refutable, and therefore even rejecting all argument from First Principle, Metaphysics, in the sense that the prefix 'Meta' is still to be understood to denote that Metaphysics howsoever is thought to lie beyond not just Physics but science in general, is the domain of questions that cannot, as yet, be tested, but that can, nevertheless, be at all rationally discussed, as for example in sheer conjecture and Logic or even whatever explanatory power all thereof. After all, Philosophy endures as the incubator of emergent new fields of science.
For example, -and speaking of alternative non mechanistic conjectures as to the very nature of Logic, especially being and causality- the question of whether Quantum Mechanics is a function of Indeterminacy, whatever that means, or just ordinary measurement uncertainty, is an intelligible question that is passing out from abstract Metaphysics into practicable science, only now as testable hypotheses to answer that question are emerging, as well as competing testable hypotheses, and prior hypotheses are becoming testable that hither to may not have been.
But Metaphysics in the related sense that the prefix 'Meta' is ever construed to denote that Metaphysics is howsoever intended simply to pertain not merely to Physics but as extended also to science in general, is the Philosophy of science that strives towards an optimal guiding premise for Scientific Method, much as Algebra is to Mathematics.
The difference is, however, that Mathematics including Algebra is simply part of Logic, an invariant internally consistent principle in and of itself (or, so we may hope), equations leading inexorably to their solutions. Whereas science goes beyond the abstract in seeking truth, defined as correspondence to reality. And so, unlike any pure Logic, science is Empirical and dependant upon external reality testing investigating problems confronted in the real world.
That is why science deals in weighing the evidence as best we may. Because there is no absolute proof, proof positive, or proof at all, outside of Logic including Mathematics, wherein proof is only of validity, defined as theoretical logical internal consistency, and never of truth, again, defined as correspondence to external reality which is never ascertainable by logical possibility alone without actually testing by observation and experiment.
Thus, Metaphysics consists of Ontology, Phenomenology, Epistemology and, by extension, Methodology.
Ontology is the question of what is, the domain of objective reality. An ontic or Ontological statement or hypothesis, called an assertion, is such as employs the verb "to be" dealing with what is. An Ontology is any particular hypothesis concerning existence, that which may exist and conditions as they may obtain.
But reality is distinct from our limited knowledge thereof:
Phenomenology is the study of the Phenomena. A Phenomenology is any particular hypothesis seeking in any part to explain the Phenomena.
Subjectivity refers to effects resultant from the perspective of whatever or whomever effected or even affected, as expressed by verbs most especially seeming and hence, from the subjective first person perspective, expressed, grammatically, in the passive voice. For the Phenomena, literally, appearances, is each our own private ongoing simulation of outside reality from continual sensory input, in which we live. In other words, not just any effect whatsoever, but, more specifically, that we experience at all, both perception, an interpretation from sensory input from the outside world, and also in consciousness, reflection or inner life, memory and that we come to be aware of our own thoughts and feelings, even intentions, that are often considered as perhaps intrinsic qualities or qualia, perhaps even ineffable properties of experience or as experienced even such as immediacy, as qualified, described in however differentiating distinctive characteristics rather than as however if at all quantified, numerically. -In fiction, Point Of View or POV, wherein the literary device of interior monologue may attempt to convey in words, reflection, situation with Representation of Consciousness or thought process as a vehicle of narration. Indeed, stream-of-consciousness may endeavor to show, convey or portray experience, the entire subjective Phenomena, as it passes by, however even at random.
Perceptual Physiology, Neuroscience and Psychology all impact Phenomenology, the study of the Phenomena. Indeed, in the personal constructs of social cognition, elaborate construction of false inference built from successive red herrings, often arises from various learned or innate naturally flawed Epistemological Methodology.
Just as Solipsism is the fruitless hypothesis that nothing is actually real save, perhaps, for the perceiver or perhaps, at that, not even the self, Empiricism is the promising Epistemological, Phenomenological and Ontological hypothesis that knowledge of reality arises, one way or another, from experience of some external reality.
Thus does Empiricism relate Phenomenology and Epistemology, Ontologically.
Epistemology is the question of how knowledge arises, particularly, by whatever, if any, the causal chain of events as ever may end, indeed, in knowledge. An Epistemology is any particular hypothesis of how knowledge arises, and indeed, at the end of what manner of causal chain of events, if any.
Methodology, then, is is applied Epistemology, the search for any systematic application of Epistemology, deliberately, in ongoing investigation. An Epistemological Methodology is any particular hypothesis of how one might best go about increasing knowledge.
Epistemological Methodology is necessary premise to valid Scientific Method. Otherwise, Scientific Method becomes ever more slipshod and arbitrary, continually degenerating and subject to distortion, as systemic problems and error unchecked, creep in, continually. As, for example, with the self validation of assumptions in statistical quality control.
Other crucial Epistemological and Methodological questions include those of Inductivism Vs Hypothetico Deductivism and Reductionism Vs. Gestalt.
The Scientific Method, as typically taught us in school and preliminary undergraduate science courses, is a process consisting of the following four steps in order:
Actually, however, in science as in life, all stages are concurrent, ongoing, also subject to correction and change in direction. And there is endless controversy confronting problems inherent to every aspect of adequate observation, explanation, prediction and experiment; indeed, of Epistemology and whatever the causal chain of events as ever may end in knowledge, let alone systematic Methodological application thereof.
Because there always needs to be a valid reason for good science to be anything more than a mere cultural activity to be dismissed as little more. Otherwise, science, always fallible at best, remains at risk from becoming increasingly arbitrary, even superstitious.
Knowledge, if there is any such a thing, must be more than belief, arbitrarily, even though our knowledge is so limited and fallible. After all, belief alone can be not only mistaken but even arbitrary and irrational.
But perhaps knowledge may be characterized by Epistemology, the study of the way in which knowledge arises, Methodologically, which is to say, deliberately and systematically. In other words, the way in which truth, correspondence to reality, and not just logical validity, may better and more reliably be identified in assertions, statements of initially unfounded conjecture, and come to our awareness.
Because, any conjecture or assertion may be true or not, but the question remains how said truth or falsity might be detected and known, either way. And this, perhaps, is what characterizes knowledge, distinctly. Thus must knowledge be somehow distinct from mere happenstancially true conjecture, in that knowledge must be more than lucky accidental incidental true possibility that might well go undetected (even though knowledge often does come about by chance discovery).
Unfailingly, a stopped clock is precisely and exactly true twice a day, just as the tired old joke goes. But such will tend to be unknown truth. Indeed, there would be more knowledge of the time of day to be gleaned, however approximately, simply by gazing up at the sky!
Knowledge means knowledge of truth. Knowledge is awareness of truth (defined as correspondence to reality) particularly in assertions. Knowledge can ever more closely approach, but never quite arrive at, the whole truth, because there will always be much remaining unknown, countless gaps and errors yet to be found. That is why, as a matter of Epistemology, knowledge is improved Hypothetico Deductively, by continual trial and error according to soundest available Methodology.
But knowledge can be of information, cases, skills and processes. "Factual" [sic.] information is often the easiest to state and to assess and simply therefore often preferred, even though no less often of least practical importance, skills often being found the most difficult to articulate and of greatest practical importance along with processes and cases.
Also see: knowledge-driven Epistemology
So, what is the importance of all this vocabulary definition?
And because arguing fine points thereto, which are often pivotal in just about every other field, becomes unbelievably cumbersome sans "them big words" and the primary concepts they encapsulate. -Which must otherwise be parenthetically restated at length in every single sentence!
And that is always more cumbersome and confusing, not less.
Objectivity should be unambiguous!
Indeed, there are more than one possibly confusing related senses even of the very word 'objective:'
Conflation arises from the vague ideation that objectivity in the mind and it's sound reasoning and conclusions, being more than merely subjective and Phenomenal, somehow partake of or participate in the objectivity of external reality.
It is an all too common misguided linguistic implication that the objectivity of external reality can or somehow has ever magically or sympathetically resonated in any way, or otherwise simply entered like a thief, numinously, into the consciousness even of the most objectively minded thinker. -As in the notion of having or possessing [sic.] rather than simply knowing "facts" [sic.] (whatever all that means) rather than truth (correspondence to reality in assertions). Or else, as a straw man argument, a dishonest sham, to deny objective reality (which is the subject matter of Ontology) at least Epistemologically, that since none of the aforesaid can be so, we must all to any degree therefore embrace Solipsism or even Relativism (which is the baffling oxymoronic doctrine of multiple subjective truth whatever that can possibly mean), or at least some other type or form of Post Modernism, though, arguably, not all schools of Post Modernism are equal or irredeemable to critical thinking, only given that conjecturality and uncertainty, indeed as admissible by analytic deconstruction, can at long last be embraced optimistically and never again mourned as the Ecclesiastical futility of Wittgensteinean paralysis.
But any Empirical process, even at best conceivable fidelity, remains entirely mechanistically causal, some sort of physical chain of events and also logical progression from input to conclusion. Objectivity in the mind may even arrive at or at least come close to truth, but truth only means correspondence to reality, objective reality itself remaining distinct from anything of the subjective or Phenomenal. Only the process of Epistemologically sound Methodology in pursuit of truth, defined as correspondence to reality, at all accounts for and connects objectivity in the Phenomenal mind to the objectivity of external reality.
Hence the two senses of the word 'objectivity' remain related but distinct, and should so be preserved.
Why the very word 'fact' is to be avoided like the plague!
Worse, the very word 'factual' means either characterized by or containing fact, or, especially, being terse and even to the point, or else, alas, as is more common, trivialization and over simplification dispensing with background and context, and the most flagrant hand waving, the aforesaid fact(s) ranging from 1) those that are objectively real, true denoting correspondent to reality, or only 2) valid denoting theoretically logical and internally consistent, 3) knowledge denoting awareness of truth (again, truth defined as correspondence to reality), 4 & 5) believed (especially, widely, most especially by consensus), either 4) currently or 5) historically, 6) information, even 7) data sets arbitrarily, all as opposed to imagination, judgment, opinion (especially individual or minority), viewpoint (likewise), sentiment, or, especially, digression, despite every all too crucial creative and investigative (Epistemologically Methodological) function that all the latter may serve in arriving at any of the former.
Indeed, the very word 'fact' has gained from this aforesaid range, set of sets or category of fact, all these seven distinct but often blithely unspecified usages as to be rendered hopelessly ambiguous! And any usage of the very word: 'fact' such as where a more precise synonym cannot be derived from context, is, of necessity, ambiguously unclear, whether by blithe omission or by conniving propaganda design.
For although propaganda, replete with all manner persuasive symbols and metaphors, is typically emotive, nevertheless there is also pseudo rational propaganda taking the appearance of genuine scientific truth, but often actually deceptive mystification. Because, rather than genuine, rational appraisal of information, citations of ersatz “facts“ [sic] and figures leave the impression of great rationality, effectively mythologizing science itself.
And often the intended target of such pseudo rational propaganda is unable or unwilling to analyze the figures, or simply overwhelmed by argumentum verbosum, sheer volume of material, even Inductivist raw data, such as appears well researched, and thus is persuaded only by the fraudulent appearance of rationality promoted via just such vague capricious mystification as insidiously conditioned into the solid sounding authoritative buzz word: 'fact,' rather than by ever actually reasoning and coming to grips with reality.
5) Indeed, in discussion of history, in yet another distinctly different usage, the word 'fact' denotes mainstream truisms contemporary to geographical and chronological milieu or familiar world.
4) For a truism is an all too often blithely undoubted assertion commonly accepted as blindingly obvious or self evident. Alas, however, truisms are notoriously unreliable. Indeed, the wishful manufacture of fraudulent truisms and consensus by slight of hand, is ironically dubbed: 'truthiness' by mock pundit Steven Colbert.
8) While scientific claims of fact are defined as a) consistent and repeatable observations or as b) assertions thereof. c) -Though by the same token, facts may have to be quantifiable in numerical figures. But if expression of and of the aforesaid is, indeed, precisely the intention, then it will better and stronger by far to state exactly so, that whatever observations are consistent and repeatable, or that assertions to that effect have been proffered. -Let alone stated only quantifiably, or worse, without qualification or worse still, without comprehension, as ever the case may be.
And the same goes likewise for any other context, usage and abuse of the word 'fact.' Know what you mean and say what you mean. For Orwellian language is insidious! Indeed, blithe habit of usage never necessarily insures understanding or coherence. And the very word 'fact' has come to embody all that has ever so needlessly come to be rendered convolutedly obscure about that which is most simple, manifest and fundamental in Metaphysics.
Indeed, just what are they saying, who so claim to have the facts? What ever can they be talking about? Indeed, it must make a huge difference, which sort of fact, by which of the eight distinct but then undifferentiated into obscurity linguistic meanings, anyone may ever purport to have in their possession. -Not to mention, exactly how and in what sense such intangibles are ever in any way distinctly possessed.
Even the expression: to seek truth, is already problematically imprecise, not to be taken too literally.
Indeed, what can it mean: to have
the truth? Truth, after all, is correspondence to reality, in assertions.
Only assertions can be more approximately or precisely true or else generally
false, and possess or partake in any quality of truth, if one cares to put it
that way. Hence, what we can attain or achieve, is not truth, but, to be
precise, knowledge
of truth, awareness of correspondence to reality in particular
assertions.
And if indeed we do value truth and knowledge
thereof, then it well behooves us to beware! Whenever that vastly ambiguous and
insidious, ill advised utterance of Orwellism: 'fact' [sic]
is employed, how can such fine distinctions possibly be clearly expressed and
saliently borne in mind?
For example, what is meant by assertion or claiming possession of the fact of God? Simply even to possess knowledge of God, would of necessity nevertheless forever remain however uncertain to mere mortals. But as fact also denotes reality, the fact of God means the real existence of God. Hence, possession of the 'fact' [sic] of God, purports to internalize the claimed external reality. Thusly, by just such flagrant conflation and question begging, the vaunted personal relationship with God, is zealously and dogmatically slammed shut to all but literal prima facie interpretation! -The latter exercise in sheer lunatic Sophistry presenting perhaps the most extreme possible confusion over the different and sometimes confusing senses of the very word: 'objective.'
Or, for another example: "These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." said US secretary of state Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations security council on Wednesday February 5, 2003 concerning the notorious alleged Iraqi WMD. But just what sort of facts where they? (Especially if they where not even assertions. Was it actually Powell's intention that these claims he presented did not in any way regard reality or possess truth value? Could he have been deliberately trying to slip in a clue to tip off the rest of world?)
9) Yes, indeed, most insidious and deceptive of all, comes the ninth distinct linguistic meaning, any implication in usage, whatsoever, of the word 'fact' such as denoting or in any way somehow implying (patently impossible and unnecessary as this may be) a proven [sic.] (complete, total, positive) certainty -or else whatever conceivable unspecified and unclear manner of however validated, verified, privileged, authoritative or received a certitude surrogate of whatever sort, as if negating all risk so as to absolve all responsibility. In truth, however, the usage of the very word 'fact' is so often no more than the slippery vagueness of eightfold ambiguity only paraded as anything however more solid, clear or distinct, yet all the more in service to the puerile evasion of any very thought howsoever of accountability.
And in science, where certainty is only relative at best, some or other manner of preponderance of evidence (after whatever sufficiently rigorous process of elimination, refutation of alternative viable hypotheses) may even be deemed conclusive. And even that depends upon how high one sets the bar. However, even the most conclusive evidence may yet be over turned, and, frequently, even quite inconclusive hypotheses are better or best in so far as such may, nevertheless, still be even by far the more likely hypotheses more elegant or better supported by the preponderance of evidence available than whatever known competing hypotheses, despite remaining to whatever degree and by whatever standard inconclusive, than whatever known viable alternative or contrary hypotheses, negation or denial, likewise inconclusive no less, so long as competing explanations remain open, serious and viable. For such is the ongoing burden of evidentiary support upon the positive, however much corroboration as and if available, but never verification.
Indeed, science neither recognizes nor requires (complete, total, positive) certainty, because, by implication, any Ontological claim of such (complete, total, positive) certainty must be proven. And, again, because there can be no absolute proof, proof positive, or proof at all, outside of Logic including Mathematics, wherein proof is only of validity, which is to say, theoretical logical internal consistency, and never of truth value, again, defined as correspondence to external reality which is never ascertainable by logical possibility alone without actually testing by Empirical observation and experiment always actually predicated upon systematic doubt, never axiomatic certainty.
Nevertheless, the very word 'fact' sneaks just such mythic "proof" in by the proverbial back door.
Shades of Orwell! Old Joe Friday should get a big slap on the wrist and shut the fuck up!
Indeed, in case doubt is ever exposed, creeping error in whatever background information may even be attacked as "bad facts" as if doubt, sheer credulity, where a special case, even an aberration or anomaly (even unpatriotic!) rather than a constant, perfectly healthy and responsible. For exactly such is the destructive chicanery that aims at the dishonest concealment of controversy.
After all, given all these myriad types of fact [sic], facts [sic] may be entirely context dependant, particularly as in the details or embellishments in a pure fiction or outright lie! And most slippery where context is not clearly defined. Plainly, so called fact, which is supposed to clarify, only obscures. Instead, let us strive to be more honest and Metaphysically specific.
Wikipedia
and
Wiktionary
entries
Understanding is explanatory abstraction enabling cogitation
upon and employment of concepts effective and pertinent to whatever subject
matter at hand. Explanation is of causation in context and likewise of
consequence. Rational construction comes intermediate between
objective reality and
subjective perception and experience at all, the
Phenomena, let alone abstract or
practical comprehension.
Regardless of the territory
(speaking metaphorically), whatever sort of
(proverbial) map remains product, also, of whatever
antecedent process of construction or way of perception or understanding, even
however clear and accurate. Truth is correspondence to reality
and knowledge is awareness thereof, entailing any understanding, likewise.
And even barring error outright, the incompleteness theorem plainly rules out any
utterly reliable and totally adequate description, and
Inductivist raw data without explanatory coherence
can never give rise thereto. Such "fact" [sic!], by that very precept or
definition, is nothing but a mythic oxymoron!
Hence honest and intelligent selection and configuration of whatever information deemed pertinent, remains indispensable, ever fallible and a daunting responsibility of autonomy.
And so, the only thing that can ever be clever about dumbing things down, is despicably agile fraud!
Thus the very reason facts [sic!] are considered the height of unbiased objectivity because they are regarded as discrete, inherent and fundamental, rather than being howsoever questionably constructed. And hence, as authoritatively certain as "facts" are made out to be, such that none ever need delve any deeper, thus, at the same time, the usage of the very word 'fact' becomes a denial of Ontology and a rejection of Epistemological Methodology.
For in the words of Bliss Carman, "What are facts but compromises? A fact merely marks the point where we have agreed to let investigation cease." -Which is to say that facts are so-called "common wisdom," more truism, wherein common simply denotes ubiquitousness of frequent habitual repetition, consciously propagandistic or blithely unawares, and hence, often, whatever any wisdom, entirely debatable. Hence, so-called facts may often be less objective than simply memetic, sheer habit.
Starting assumptions should be so named, being as they are indispensable and contingent to intelligibility and inquiry, and hence and no sin. Indeed, by the most reasonable and narrow definition of fact, fact states either what is generally accepted as true, or reality as objectively measurable or Empirically corroborated, even if never actually verifiable.
Yet common wisdom and objective or Empirical supportability remain two entirely different criteria. And there remains, likewise, a marked and vast distinction indeed, between consensus building and the quest for truth defined as correspondence with reality in assertions, indeed, the awareness of the latter, and nothing else or less, constituting knowledge. Common wisdom is at very best, a reasonable starting point and no more.
And the very reason facts [sic!] are considered the height of unbiased objectivity because they are regarded as discrete, inherent and fundamental, so reliable as to stand unquestioned and treated as inherently privileged, nigh transcendental, is because facts [sic!] may be such as are stated as allegedly clear simple discrete and even somehow thereby privileged units of information such as stand without subjectivity, conjecture, perspective, explanation, relevant interpretation or need of contingent complication or background. In other words, facts [sic!] are crystal clear, too simple for any confusion and hence beyond doubt, not despite but actually because they are taken superficially and entirely out of context and vastly oversimplified!
Moreover, assuming that these facts [sic!], whatever they are, are meaningful, then that might explain part of the confusion, if meaning is ever mistaken as Ontological, objectively real and somehow intrinsic, rather than subjectively Phenomenal. Meaning and understanding, after all, are created, generated or occur, in the mind, even if subjective experience is seen as part of and participation in, whatever larger events experienced. Indeed, even knowledge is but the state of awareness of truth, truth itself remaining distinct and external reality likewise.
After all, only in sympathetic magic are correspondence or connection (or similarity and contiguity) thought in any manner or degree to lessen distinction and identity. Indeed, are facts [sic!], then, somehow and in some sense inherent rather than being relational or contingent? How, then, can such so called facts [sic!] ever be true? After all, truth is not self contained. Rather, truth is correspondence to reality in assertions, a matter of Methodological empirical Epistemology, unlike like validity (defined as internal consistency of expressions), logically derivable, even in a vacuum.
Facts are
factitious,
derivative and constructed in every way. Yet the myth, unexamined, survives, as
to the Reductionist innate and
intrinsic basic constituency and even objectivity of facts [sic.], so called.
'Psychology as a science
of critical evaluation' is an attack upon
Reductionism
in Psychology, concluding in
it's own definition of 'fact,' constituting a good observation, as will
be demonstrative, subtly gone awry:
So, according to William S. Verplanck, exactly how is it that fact [sic.] "keeps in contact with actually existing circumstances"? What ever can that possibly mean? Keeping contact with existing circumstances, or to employ the same metaphor as more commonly worded: maintaining a grip on reality, is an ongoing enterprise over time. This means: that as events unfold and change occurs, the observing scientist strives to keep in the know. But also, that, even regardless of the need for longitudinal data, knowledge being imperfect, must change, grow and improve.
According to Verplanck, fact [sic.] "is always a knowledge construct, and is more or less valuable for purposes of control and understanding". In other words, knowledge is constructed in order to glean understanding in order, in turn, to facilitate better control.
And why does the precise mind of a scientist wax so poetical except wrestling, desperately, with the vague, tortured and convoluted chimerical notion of fact [sic.] ? Next, let us only remove the very word: 'fact,' and instantly discover how much clearer the entire expression will become!
Because no usage of the word: 'fact' wherein no better and more precise synonym may be derived from context, can ever be rationally lucid or linguistically meaningful.
Indeed, in debating the qualifications for science and critical determination of existential conditions, the real question becomes Epistemological, and what Verplanck is really concerned with is the need for broad Ontological context from prior knowledge of reality, knowledge being awareness of truth and truth being correspondence to reality in assertions. - said knowledge of reality, here named 'fact' simply because even knowledge must be conjectured and factitiously constructed. Alas, and nevertheless, not all so-called 'fact' is truth (correspondence to reality) let alone knowledge (awareness of truth), no matter the factitiousness even of knowing. 'Fact,' so-called, then, still demands critical evaluation as any other assertion. No starting point is ever secure, but at best only at all reasonable and honest.
So-called 'fact,' then, is still often nothing but assertion, pretending somehow some other category, unstated. We must still strive to glean knowledge, awareness of truth ('truth' denoting correspondence to reality), by the elimination of error, of so called 'facts,' constructs however mistaken for, or fobbed of as, knowledge. Only in just such oft Quixotic striving may we ever gain the perspective of Socratic wisdom gauging the scope of our own ignorance, thus abandoning the smug provincial stupidity of fact [sic!].
Actually, the contrived superficiality of so-called 'facts' is as unduly and blithely biased as can be, shielded from refutation by concealment of the universal conjectural nature of all assertion or claim to truth. Indeed, ostensibly factual superficiality is at best among the least reliable means by which to derive viable hypothesis for understanding of the world, or at worst, a most slippery and calculated lying by omission.
The myth of truth arising via the compilation of data without prejudicial bias, therefore without direction of guiding hypothesis, even however tentative, is Inductivism, which never really works and never will.
The mythic freedom from error of the authoritative stance has been shown to be false and irresponsible. Not only can so called facts be chosen and spun into whatever sheer Sophistry at will, but, indeed, in any case, information must be filtered, selected and interpreted in order to become intelligible at all, even to scratch the very surface!
Fact [sic.] is often so blithely and sharply differentiated from opinion. But actually and intrinsically, all assertions are both opinion and claim of truth value. -and no less so without apology! Hence, what are so-called facts [sic], or else how are they privileged, that such facts [sic] are not also opinions or perhaps more than mere opinions?
Moreover, the truth will never simply arise therefrom by induction. Only the explanatory power of bias of one kind or another renders even the most direct Empirical experience intelligible at all. The so called and vaunted impartiality of short attention span infotainment news media only strips events of context and background. Indeed, far from providing whatever blandly authoritative reassurance at least ostensibly intended, the unacknowledged senseless ambiguity of just such cursory news coverage is known to contribute to mounting tension and stress, across the population, life long. -A far, far cry from the abiding responsibility that strives for and encourages by example, any sort of genuine objectivity or quasi-scientific journalistic integrity, indeed as best possible for any field work outside of controlled laboratory conditions, ever striving no less, at ongoing self correction and improvement.
Indeed, the very pompously portentous brain-dead notion that any processed data whatsoever is thereby in virtue thereof automatically ennobled or becomes at all meaningful, much less in any sense actually true, is finally taken as lightly as it deserves in most opportune parody deconstruction via the notorious MTV factoid, items of trivia subjected to humorous arbitrary correlations interjected at will into the most inane Popup Videos.
Likewise, simply as a matter of clear
writing style, such
needlessly cumbersome indirect lackluster circumlocution of tortured literary
"spaghetti scaffolding" as "the
fact that" can be and all to often are thrown about without the
moment's care it takes to work out the actual intended subject and object of a
sentence, in other words, without the bother to identify specifically and
intelligibly whatever it may be that one endeavors to speak or write of, and how
one aspect, signified by a noun, relates to any other, as signified by a verb.
For example: "His situation might have been most dire save for the fact that he
was lucky enough to find allies" instead of "He'd been doomed where it not for
his great luck in finding allies." Because the real topic is not "the fact"
[sic.], whatever the fuck that means, but his luck. Nor is any conceivable
measure or adequacy of his luck any real concern, but that alliance was/is
fortuitous.
Indeed, cumbersome and indirect expressions the likes of "the fact that" tend
not only to lend themselves to the
passive voice, but in such the worst way as to obscure
literal responsibility by displacing the active verbs, needlessly complicating
while actually impoverishing prose rather than truly enriching it, even though
throwing about such fuzzy expressions as "the fact that" seems so handy and may be so
much easier to do than investing a moment's effort and concentration in
attaining the clarity to correct oneself and better rephrase by adequately and
properly grasping whatever genuine operant relationships between the different
elements of prose in turn reflecting whatever actual relationships between
whatever whatever the words signify or correspond to in reality
or even hypothetically, as ever such
relationships may actually
come into effect, contextually.
Here the very word 'fact' plunges to it's depths of authoritatively meaningless ambiguity and bluster, as in the expression "the fact of the matter", signifying the definite nonspecific state of affairs of whatever particular nonspecific state of affairs, Ontologically. At least the common and simple impersonal pronoun 'it' remains undisguisedly unspecific, but without the needless and pointless recursion.
And how is "the fact" [sic] of anything whatsoever at all distinct from whatever existence or occurrence indicated by linguistically referencing thereof in the first place? Indeed, Perhaps the best synonym for the very word 'fact' in all of it's similarly muddled and convoluted fraud, is most readily encountered careening down the rabbit hole into Heidegger's weird world of 'dasein' or recursive being of being.
Because any usage of the very word: 'fact' such as where a more precise synonym cannot be derived from context, is, of necessity, ambiguously unclear, whether by blithe omission or by conniving propaganda design, therefore there simply can be no correct usage of the very word 'fact,' save, perhaps, unless aforesaid deliberately confusing and misleading propagandistic abuse. To reiterate, no usage of the constructed Orwellism: 'fact' can actually be correct except to deception, in the sense of correct application of purposely misleading intentional vagueness.
Moreover, if a separate referent absitively posolutly must be had for all that the sentence as a whole is already descriptive in the first place, then there are still better and more elegantly salient utterances, such as the "phenomena [lower case] of" or "the happenstance that" or better still "the manner in which" or, most simply and self sufficiently, the very words alone, 'how' or even 'that.' -As in "His situation might have been most dire save (for) that he was lucky enough to survive because he found allies." "The cause of his survival where the allies that he came upon so fortuitously."
However the simplest: "Luckily, he survived by finding allies." -remains readily derivable, simply from the bother to identify specifically and intelligibly whatever it may be that one endeavors to speak or write of, and how one aspect, signified by a noun, relates to any other, as signified by a verb, in this case the noun 'he' signifying some person, followed by the appropriate conjugation of the verb: 'to survive' denoting the continuation of his life even in the face of whatever adversity.
Or for still another example: "It thus seems that the fact even that we are in dispute over so many questions, so many of which are fundamental, is itself a fundamental fact." may be less tortuously rendered: "Thus seemingly even that we are in dispute over so many questions, so many being fundamental, is itself fundamental." Or: "It seems that the dispute in the field, over numerous questions so many even being fundamental, already in and of itself, could hardly be more fundamental."
For if one obdurately must insist upon sentence formulation redeploying the verbs of whatsoever occurrence as ever transpires under any whatever conditions as nouns in denoting the existence of any whatever circumstances, instead of "the fact that" [sic.], serviceable and more elegantly literate alternatives might include: "being as," "being that" or even "being as that."
Indeed, if fact [sic.], like 'dasein,' is merely being, then why not simply concede the Ontological tautology that that what is, is, and thereby steer entirely clear of any neo-Heideggerian weird world of perfidious antirational syntaxic obfuscation?
All thus has the confusion over these distinctions between (proverbial) map and (metaphorical) territory actually deteriorated to the point of entering and muddling what is already so often among our most cumbersome baggage, common language itself. But with the most basic vocabulary and jargon of Metaphysics clearly, precisely and simply defined as here on this page, much such confusion may perhaps ever be ameliorated.
Indeed, t'would seem that even given free choice between them big four dollar words and just two bit monosyllables, ya' still gets what ya' pays for! So say what you mean, mean what you say, shell out the two bucks and don't be two bit!
Learn thy 'ologies!
Copyright Aaron Agassi, 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008
UPDATE: As of 6/6'04 this very page appears to have been plagiarized by collegeresearch.us