Joho the Blog[2b2k] The increasing opacity of facts - Joho the Blog

[2b2k] The increasing opacity of facts

First a disclaimer: Facts matter. The world is one way and another. It is entirely possible to be wrong. Not all statements are true. The statement “That is true for your but not for me” is almost always nonsensical. Ok? Can we proceed?

In an argument, facts — or, more precisely, statements that assert facts — usually are presented as stopping points. If it’s a fact, it’s a fact, and there’s no arguing with facts. If we are challenged to back up our facts, we’ll point to the source where we learned the fact. This is a delegation of authority: I don’t know how lung-less grasshoppers breathe, but this biology text — which is perhaps cited by Wikipedia — does. And how did that text learn it? It probably doesn’t tell us. And if it cites another source, I’m probably not going to be able to find it (unless I happen to be at a university with a generous set of journal subscriptions). And there’s a very good chance that ultimately I’m not going to be able to find out how the original source figured it out. Not all facts are opaque in this way, but many are, and we generally don’t mind when they are, since we probably invoked the fact to stop a line of discussion anyway.

So now I have to name-drop a little: This morning at SxSW I spent an hour with Stephen Wolfram, which is a rare treat; he is as completely fascinating as you think he is. He mentioned that a particular Nobelist had recently reluctantly acknowledged that most of the models being proposed these days are algorithmic and computational, just as Wolfram had predicted. Models are at the high end of the knowledge chain. At the lower end, there are facts, and WolframAlpha is about deriving facts algorithmically from a vast store of data. But computers often solve problems in ways completely other than how a human would; Wolfram’s example was differentials. In many of these cases, while a computer programmer might be able to understand the algorithm, no one could reproduce the outcome except by using another computer. So, in a very real sense, these computed facts are opaque not because the sources are untraceable — WolframAlpha curates the data that drive the site — but because they were not derived by a human intelligence.

Thus, we have knowledge without understanding not only at some of the highest levels of human knowledge, but also increasingly at the factual layer.

3 Responses to “[2b2k] The increasing opacity of facts”

  1. I think there are (at least) two categories of what we take as facts. One category belong to natural systems that operate outside of human intervention. Examples of these are laws of nature – gravity, weak and strong nuclear forces, and such like. There are other aspects of knowledge considered facts that are actually derived from heuristic experience, empirical behavioural observations, and/or based in dominant paradigms of the time. Being “socially constructed” (as it were), these facts may change over time, although they are as factual as anything else for the time in which they are true.

    In this latter case, we have knowledge based on a particular understanding and context; in fact [grin], it is that particular understanding and context that makes this class of fact a fact. As the contextual understanding and circumstances that create the factual nature of the alleged fact changes, the fact may – over time – become non-factual. Much (all?) of social science is constructed on this basis.

    The implication for WolframAlpha is philosophically interesting, I think: how valid is factual knowledge in non-natural systems when it is derived in a non-understandable, opaque context via computational algorithms (that, by definition, are limited by the epistemological limits of models, metaphors, and other boundaries of human capability)?

  2. No matter the style, the designer, or the trend, be sure that you locate and buy a pair of eye glasses that fits your face. You don?t want to walk around with a pair of glasses that is too big for you. This tends to make a person look a bit owlish. Likewise, a small spectacle on a large face just looks odd. wholesale cheap oakley sunglasses

  3. Fake Oakleys ssed it, with my heart beating awfully. I was horribly embarrassed. awfully grateful to you, she said; sure I do any thing in the world to repay you. I sure I don know what would have become of me if it hadn been for you. And I hope you excuse me for putting you to so much trouble. foakleys

Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon