Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

Bob has touched upon some classic philosophical issues. Perhaps by
exploring them a bit we can arrive at a better grasp of the significance
of data and their interpretation.

The first thing that needs to be done is to be clear about the
difference between data and facts.

Data refer to organized information, usually observational information
and (necessarily) a set of associated premises (axioms). Data have
nothing to do with truth, but instead are provided with
justification. For example, if the birth certificate of person A
indicates that the father was B, that information represents a datum. It
may be that person C was actually the father, but the birth certificate
statement nevertheless remains a datum.

Premises are obviously not proved, but only justified, for otherwise
they would not be "premises". The justification of our premises does not
refer to their truth, but to the reasons why we select them. We choose
premises for a variety of reasons, such as their moral implications,
their aesthetic, or their utility. Our data is likewise justified by the
reason why we adopt them and take them as data: what did the birth
certificate actually state; how do I know that and how did I find out;
are they relevant to the issue in hand?

Data lacks truth value. As Bob points out, data may be erroneous for
reasons that are subjective, but that is only because we manage to
misread a datum. However, it remains a datum. If in the notes I took
when inspecting the birth certificate I managed to misspell the father's
name, that would be an error on my part, but that misinformation is
still a datum. It is known to be incorrect only after I acquire some
knowledge of the facts of the matter, but it does not for that reason
cease being a datum, for my note remains. Only now I am aware of the
fact that the inference I drew drawn from the datum is false.

Despite what the certificate claims, DNA evidence might show that "in
fact" person C, not person B, was the actual father. Here we employ
different data that points to a fact different from our original
inference drawn from the birth certificate. It is a "fact" because we
have reason to believe it to be more likely true than what we inferred
from reading the certificate. A "fact" is a statement about something
that has "truth value".

However, truth value is a relation. Truths are only true in reference to
something else. In the special theory of relativity, the size and mass
of something depends on its frame of reference. In quantum mechanics
(Heisenberg indeterminacy), the observation of data changes the truth of
what is observed. In the philosophy of science, all observations entail
unproven observational hypotheses (Lakatos).

Establi****ng the truth of the fact depends on a framework consisting of
procedures for ascertaining truth and a body of knowledge that is
generally presumed to be true. In serious discourse, the truth of a fact
is argued in terms of a specific pedagogy, such as physical science,
historiography, or genealogy. These sciences not only convey a body of
facts that can be taken as true, but also a framework for establi****ng
or testing such facts.

This frame of reference in relation to which truth is established (so
that hypothesis might become theory or fact) represents its
environment. The environment of a system is anything with which the
system has a relevant causal relation, and obviously, and not just in
human sciences, an observer or student of the system must enter into a
causal relation with it.

Since we have a causal relation with a system under study, facts are in
part socially constructed. This has led to dismay because some have
taken it to imply "subjectivism" - the reduction of truth to just
fa****on or personal whim. This is not so, of course. To insist upon the
subjective component in truth does not obviate the truth value of facts,
but merely points out that no truth is absolutely self-contained and
necessarily entails a greater whole of it is a part. A truth isolated
from context, from the whole, is not for that reason false, but instead
is what is often called "one sided". It has truth value, but a limited
one. The universal laws in physics are an artifact of laboratory
isolation. This does not falsify those laws, but makes them a one-sided
aspect of a world that does not reduce to rigid universal laws. As often
pointed out, such laws don't really explain anything, for they are only
observations of general behavior.

Bob notes that "History is aided by facts when they are available, but
useful history can be built based on analysis of subjective information
as well". Indeed, a historical theory is socially constructed from facts
that the historical profession, some other authority says is valid or by
virtue of some argumentation, and so are taken to be true. He hints of
the distinction between a fact and a scientific theory, such as history
or genealogy. Both are socially constructed, but their utility is in
relation to different things. A fact has utility in relation to a
theory; a theory constructed from the facts has utility in relation to
society, including our understanding and activity in the world.

A nice way to define the relation of data to the construction of facts
and theory is to see the data as constraints on the possible facts or
theories we might construct by using them. More accurately, data
constrain the probability distribution of the truth value of the
possible socially constructed facts and theories.

-- 
 
       Haines Brown, KB1GRM