Replying to LO30927 --
Hi Hal and Phil and everyone,
This feels quite scary to way into such a profound debate - but in the
spirit of learning, I have written my own understandings below in this
my first post to the list. I am currently a PhD student bridging
between Education and Management and intrigued by the possibilities of
the application of learning and systems within organisations.
Previously I worked as a professional development co-ordinator in a
large organisation. Now I immerse myself fully in learning again.
...snip...I don't think you can separate a fact from it's acceptance
(but I could be wrong). There is something very "social" about how we
accept facts.
Dare I say "...a fact does not become a fact until it has been
accepted as one, and even this acceptance can be later revoked". This
acceptance may be by one person or a number of people, the rebuke by
one or many.
What then makes a fact "true"? The fact itself or the acceptance of
the fact?...snip...
IMHO: This is getting very philosophical quickly! Is there existence
of a "fact" as something outside of a human to comprehend it? On a
metaphysics discussion list
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0067.html discussing
evolution it suggests that "facts" are only what we can know through
experience and have that experience be shared universally (or almost
universally). The example they use is gravity - and while we might not
"know" what gravity is, or how it works, we do know through experience
that it is - for we are bound/held to the earth.
Perhaps there is a variety of levels of accepted proof regarding the
universality of a fact.
Universally accepted "facts" - eg gravity, requirement of some oxygen
mix to enable us to breath and therefore to live - Then down a line to
"facts" that are accepted by large groups of people - eg whether the
world in flat or not - and these are ones that might be accepted as
not being so - disproved "facts" as it were The "fact" scale continues
to diminish in terms of universal reliability, as smaller numbers of
people can be found to accept/know/experience such things. Eg the
existence or not of weapons of mass destruction in a particular place.
Thus, I think there is a social element essential to the acceptance of
a fact as a fact. Truly external facts - that is, things that just
"are" - the existence of something that is incontrovertible but maybe
outside of our ability to know or accept it, is possible, but this is
in itself a circular argument - for something to be incontrovertible,
there must be someone able to perceive it to declare it so. This
seems to be leading to the hoary old philosophical question - Does a
tree that falls in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear
it?
Regards,
Cynthia
Cynthia Rohner
School of Education
University of Queensland
>I don't think you can separate a fact from it's acceptance (but I
>could be wrong). There is something very "social" about how we accept
>facts.
[Host's Note: Welcome, Cynthia, to our LO dialogue! ..Rick]
--Cynthia Rohner <c.rohner@uq.edu.au>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.