1.0   Facts are not established democratically

    The mathematicians have not only confused the facts with a statement of the facts, but also with theories.
    They have developed the notion that a fact is a theory which has been voted by a self-appointed majority.

    “ For instance, I can make the hypothesis that fire is hot. I put my hand into a fire and
       find it is hot. Now it is a theory. If it is validated by many to the point of certainty then
       it is a fact.” [1]

    [I sure hope for his sake that ‘the many’ validate the fact that ‘fire is hot’ before his hand
     turns to coal!]

    “ A scientific fact is a scientific observation that is so accepted that it becomes difficult
       to consider other interpretations of the data.” [2]

    “ According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen
       interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum
       mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.” [3]

    “ fact: an observation statement accepted pragmatically and operationally as being true
       …because the statement is subject to verification by many observers” [4]

    These statements indicate that the establishment perceives a fact to be a matter of democracy and personal
    opinion. The greater the show of hands, the more a theory approaches a fact. Where it is exactly that theory
    crosses the line into fact we don’t know; perhaps at 50% + 1. What we can be sure of is that democracy
    always conduces to tyranny of the many against the few. This does not result in knowledge. It results in
    religion. The effect of democracy in Science is to protect the beliefs and opinions of those in positions of
    power. The mainstream imposes its will on dissidents. Science stagnates. Religion thrives. The generation is
    convinced it knows everything. There is nothing more to learn. Theory is now 100 % fact. The powers that be
    have reached consensus.

    A couple of examples serve to disintegrate the gross misconception that a fact has something to do with a
    theory or with a show of hands:

    •        Is the theory that Jesus walked on water a fact because Christians are in the majority?
    •        Should we conclude that the Earth is flat because the majority voted for this ‘theory’
              1000 years ago, or would the establishment prefer that we regard the now discredited
              flat-Earth hypothesis as an ‘untrue’ fact? What if we take the members of the Flat Earth
              Society on a tour of the Moon and still they refuse to acknowledge that our planet is
              spherical? Is it then not a fact that the Earth is spherical?
    •        If facts are confirmed ‘theories’ or ‘hypotheses,’ what should we do if an obstinate juror
              refuses to believe that John is dead despite that his remains are lying there before us?
              Is John being dead not a fact? Or would the peer reviewers prefer to submit the matter
              to a vote?

    Some people with feeble brains reply that a fact is a fact to those who believe it and not a fact to those who
    don’t. Thus, God exists for me, but doesn’t exist for you. The flat Universe is a fact for relativists, but not for
    Copernicus. And Jesus walking on water is a fact for Christians, but not for Muslims.

    This argument is okay in religion and in ordinary speech, but untenable in science. It would amount to a futile
    discussion were something to be a fact for the plaintiff but not for the defendant.


    2.0   Solution to scientific subjectivity: Eliminate the observer

    Having distinguished between a fact and a statement of the facts, how do the prosecutors guarantee
    objectivity in a scientific statement of the facts? Certainly, if the prosecutors had irrefutable evidence
    such as the ‘true’ facts, they wouldn’t need a witness. We don’t need a witness to tell us that this glass
    is on this table or that fire is hot. Nevertheless, a witness does not and cannot retain every minor detail
    of an event. Witnesses are notorious for peppering their testimonies with judgments that tend to steer
    and sway the jury. The statement ‘The red car rear-ended the blue car.’ is more subjective than the
    statement ‘Two cars collided.’ Perhaps the witness did not intend to offer an opinion, but this was indeed
    the effect. The former statement is subjective and may even be a theory. The latter is more ideally what we
    expect from a statement of a fact. Surely, witnesses forget, clip, or manipulate scenes inadvertently or when
    they intend to lie. Can we recover unrecorded scenes through torture or hypnosis? Would the prosecutors
    bet their lives on such confessions?

    The answer is that a statement of the facts is always subjective. It can never be a faithful narrative of what
    actually happened (i.e., a fact). Countless minuscule events escape scrutiny and are lost forever. The human
    mind has the ability to record only a tiny fraction of the gazillions of events that take place during an
    occurrence and in the best of cases from a single perspective. A film of every detail, of every atom, of every
    molecule in motion would take as much time as the real event and consist of so many frames that it would be
    impossible to record in any medium.

    Regarding the (true) facts, the only way to guarantee that subjective opinions do not color them is to produce
    the genuine fact: the actual occurrence. In order to use the word fact consistently in a scientific courtroom, the
    definition should make no provisions for opinions or beliefs. There is only one way to guarantee factual
    objectivity in science: we must absolutely kill the observer! Recall the popular scene where the detective
    rudely interrupts the ranting witness “The facts ma’am, just the facts.” This, more or less, synthesizes the
    scientific version of the word fact. Any definition of the word fact that implicitly or explicitly includes
    opinionated testimony is restricted to ordinary speech. In Physics, there are neither measurements nor
    observers.

    fact, true fact, truth: Every minute detail of what actually is, was, happens, or happened
    irrespective of witnesses or observers; A detailed film clip of an actual event that
    conceptually includes every frame for that interval of the Cosmic Movie.

    assumption, statement of the facts, lie: A subjective statement  from a witness
    concerning an event or an object. A statement of the facts is either a description of
    an object or a narrative, an objective listing (usually chronological) of a series of
    events. A particular interpretation of the evidence or of an observation; The second
    phase of a scientific hypothesis.

    evidence: The set of objects that the prosecutors introduce in support of their
    statement of the facts. In science, evidence does not include testimony. Evidence is
    part of the hypothesis stage of the scientific method and not of the theory. Evidence
    is a subset of the Exhibits. Rates, ratios, and relations do not constitute evidence for
    the purposes of science, but are rather components of the statement of the facts.
    Conceptually, evidence is a tiny subset of true facts, authentic, brief portions of the
    Universal Film.

    Of course, by rubbing out the witness, we summarily destroy Mathematical Physics because its ‘bread and
    butter’ is measurement and observation. Without their beloved witness, Mathematical Physics in its entirety
    disintegrates like a castle of sand on the beach.

    To summarize, a hypothesis is comprised of exhibits or evidence, definitions, and assumptions. These three
    steps are necessary to introduce a scientific theory. Even a paper that is written in time-less mode – for
    example one discussing a universal truth – offers testimony. Therefore, written material always contains
    statements of facts (and perhaps a fact here and there). A photograph of a knife is not the same as the knife
    and doesn’t qualify as a true fact (i.e., evidence) in science. A photograph of a knife is as much scientific
    evidence as testimony. Assumptions underlie all recorded scientific theories (i.e., science). In science, a fact
    is what actually occurred. A statement of the facts is what the witness says that occurred. An observer sees
    less than what actually happened, remembers a fraction of what she sees, and summarizes what little she
    remembers during testimony (the important scenes). Different observers tell different tales. A proponent
    typically presents evidence (relevant physical objects) at the beginning of the presentation (i.e., during the
    step called hypothesis).
Ladies and gentlemen! I counted 143 ayes, 11 nays, and 2
abstentions. I am pleased to inform you that Big Bang is now a fact.


A show of hands does not
establish a fact
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008