Re: Mike Alexander/Social Science ... Addendum to "Is"

A key element of my argument was prediction.  Facts by themselves are useful means to an end, but the end is understanding, an understanding that is demonstrated by accurate predictions.  For example, as a hobby I study economic and financial history.  In the course of my studies I noted some interesting correlations which I developed into a model that allowed me to make a prediction in 2000 that the stock market would underperform money market funds for the following 20 years.  I wrote a book about this (see below).  So far the prediction is holding up, but there are 19 more years to go. If this indeed comes to pass, the successful prediction provides some small evidence that the model I developed contains an element of true knowledge about how the stock market works.  

 

Mike Alexander,  author of
Stock Cycles: Why stocks won't beat money markets over the next 20 years.
http://www.net-link.net/~malexan/STOCK_CYCLES.htm

----- Original Message -----

From: Luke Rondinaro

To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu

Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 11:11 PM

Subject: Re: Mike Alexander/Social Science ... Addendum to "Is"

Mike Alexander makes some good points in responding to my ‘Addendum to “Is”’ piece.  In reply to his points, I wish to raise a few questions and make two/three more statements regarding the issue of  “is”, science, etc.

Yes, the matter pretty much comes down to “facts” and empirical investigation.  But, even as we’re considering fundamental terms and principles of factual evidence in a scientific context, are the “facts” themselves really part of “is” or does the word- categorization “is” really belong to the object itself along with its phenomena and processes?  Certainly “facts” as the result of an empirical data-gathering project are themselves not too much of a problem; they represent aspects of the phenomena/ processes of the object in question.  But as soon as they are formulated into the basest form of knowledge – which we conveniently call “facts” also - they pose a dilemma.  Are these “facts” in the secondary sense of the word, necessarily accurate and are they, hence, necessarily a part of “is?” 

If they are to be considered a form of knowledge – even as raw data – then it means there is still a wide disconnect between the manifestation of the object’s phenomena/processes and the measurements we as scientists take in the course of our research.  Empirical observations are fine, measurements are fine, and the instruments used to take those measurements are fine also; I’m not saying they aren’t.  But at some point, we’re faced with the quandary à [Are the senses themselves (by which we make our empirically-based observations) reliable? Are our empirical methods valid?  Can we accurately determine what the facts are (let alone what the “truth” is)? ]  If we answer the question by saying “Let’s do more tests”, then we’re left with a tautology.  The only way out of this mess (that I can see) is by acknowledging that at some level the senses are reliable and that the human mind can come to an understanding of “truth” regarding reality, the universe, the world, and so on.  {At a particular juncture, we must accept these as fundamental axioms/postulates and, then, go on with our tests, trying in as much as possible to avoid obvious errors as we proceed along in our research.}   We must be willing to accept some first principles in our studies even if all they end up consisting of are:  “empirical tests determine the validity of the senses and the facts” & “the senses, the facts, and the circumstances from which they derive help to determine the validity of one’s empirial research over time.”  Perhaps the facts themselves (in the first sense I described) operate as our first principles (…) 

In any case, I still agree with M.A.  The matter pretty much comes down to “facts” and how we get them via empirical investigation.

<All knowledge contains assertions that are assumed to be true (that is a fact), which are not actual empirical facts.  Hence all knowledge is a description of what we currently believe to be what is. >

1. We also assume our facts to be true on the basis of our empirical investigation’s validity (plus the validity of our measurements, reliability of the senses at some level, reliability of our instruments, and the ability of the mind to aspire/come to some sort of understanding of “truth.”).

2. “…not actual empirical (my emphasis) facts.”  à What of the names, dates, circumstances of historical records; are they “actual empirical facts?”  What of the socioeconomic content of world history; does that consist of “actual empirical facts?”  I can only surmise you’re using an expanded sense of the word “empirical” here.  Are you? …

3. (“Believe” or “perceive”)  I wonder what’s the better word to use in this case?  “Perceive” seems better to me.  We’re building our knowledge based – not even so much on what our minds think to be “what is”, but what our senses and the baser parts of our psyche perceive to be true (in other words, we’re perceiving the EVIDENT (or what we perceive to be facts/evidence) to be a certain way – even in the midst of our empirical investigations, observations, data gathering, etc.).  But what’s your view on this? …

Thanks for a very thought provoking reply to my “Addendum to Is” piece.  Best!

Luke Rondinaro

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your holiday gifts!