There Is No Such Thing As an 'Alternative Fact'
A term, 'alternative fact', seems to have been recently invented on the Bias planet. Or really I don't know whether it was recently invented or not, but at least it recently came in vogue.
Um? I don't understand a bit. According to my understanding, the fact is the whole truth about an event. Logically speaking, there can't be multiple facts to a single event, for there can't be two wholes to a single thing.
. . . Yes. According to our definition of 'fact', there can't be multiple facts to a single event. However, the term, 'fact', isn't usually used in that meaning on the Bias planet; it's used as an aspect of the whole truth about an event.
Certainly, there are multiple aspects of a fact. As it's difficult to describe the whole truth about an event, we usually describe aspects of the whole truth about an event. . . . Then, does that term, 'alternative fact', mean 'an another aspect of a fact'?
Well, according to the usage of the term, it doesn't seem so.
How is the term used?
For example, suppose that a new president of a nation insisted that more people came to his inauguration than to his predecessor's, and undeniable pieces of evidence showed that that wasn't the case. He says that his insistence is an 'alternative fact'.
. . . Can't you think of a more plausible example? That example is too preposterous. Such a dishonest person won't be elected as the president of a nation even on the Bias planet.
Won't he? Well, it's just a supposition. Anyway, he insists that his audience looked larger than his predecessor's . . .
And?
So, he insists that it's an alternative fact.
. . . It isn't any aspect of the fact about the audience of the inauguration: he is talking about his mental image; he is talking about an event that happened in his brain, not about an event that happened as actions of other people. In other words, he answered to a question, "What did you fantasize?", not to a question, "How many people came to your inauguration?".
As another example, when the color of a box is an issue, if a man who wears red glasses insists that the box is red, his insistence is an 'alternative fact'.
He is talking about how the box looks to him, not about how the box really is. He is talking about a different event from the event being discussed.
So, 'alternative fact' seems to mean a fact about an event that is irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
Is there any necessity of a new term to describe that situation?
For me, "The president cherished a delusion" will suffice to describe that situation.
We Have to Make a Distinction Between Facts and Views
I think, the problem is that there are confusions between facts and views. There are alternative views of an event, but there aren't alternative facts of an event.
For example, suppose that there is an object. The object may look a circle from a perspective and a square from another perspective. That is, there are multiple views of the event. However, the object exists independently of any observer, and has a single three dimensional shape. That is, there is only one fact about the event.
It's wrong if we call being a circle a fact about the existence of the object: it's a view about it from a perspective.
There seem to be some people who insist that there are no objective facts.
So, as they can see only a circle or a square, do they insist that there isn't the three dimensional shape? Don't what they can't see exist?
Hmm, honestly, I don't understand their reasoning. If they claim that no objective fact can be known to humans in its entirety, I agree with them. However, that's very different from that there is no objective fact. We can't insist that something doesn't exist because we can't know about it. Besides, we can near the objective fact by taking in various views of the event and building and examining a hypotheses system. In fact, if there is really no objective fact, what are we viewing? I can't imagine the situation.
Maybe their claim is the solipsism.
So, it follows that all are our imaginations. I can't logically refute the solipsism, but I think, it lacks convincing explanations. For then, why do I imagine things I imagine as I imagine? For example, why doesn't the moon ever look a square? Why do I have to imagine this disgusting world? I understand that I don't always dream happy dreams, but if I am the only one that exists, I think, things should go more as I wish.
I agree that the solipsism is required to answer due questions to be accepted as a hypothesis. Our imagination is obviously under various strong restrictions: why can't we see a triangular moon?; when we read a book, why do the contents appear at the instant I open a page while I can't remember the contents when I don't look at the page; why does the texture of a towel appear the same way every time I look at the towel while I can't recall the details of the texture when I don't look at it? If all are our imaginations, what are restricting our imagination?
If so many various books in various languages are our imaginations, why can't we understand most of them? More explicitly speaking, why can't we make us imagine that we understand them. Certainly, some things are restricting our imagination, and it will be natural to assume that objective facts are restricting our imagination.
Denying the existence of objective facts seems a quite unnatural, arbitrary hypothesis. I don't see any reason such a hypothesis should be adopted over the hypothesis that objective facts exist.
One reason will be that one wants to insist something against a fact and say, "it's an alternative fact."
Principles Aren't Things to Be Asked Whether They Are True or Not
A phrase I sometimes hear on the Bias planet is "There are no absolute truths." Does that mean the same thing with "There are no objective facts"?
I can't guarantee meanings of what others say, but as far as I know, in many cases, it seems to mean a different thing: it seems to be talking about principles, not about facts.
Principles such as communism?
Yes. In fact, the use of the term, 'truth', is inappropriate: the term, 'truth', shouldn't be used about principles. Veracity can be argued about statements on facts, but can't be argued about principles.
Ah, a principle is something that can be expressed as "You should do . . .." It's a directive. A despot of a nation on the Bias planet is said to have directed that men of the nation must have their hair close-cropped at the back as his hair, but a question of 'whether the directive is a truth or not' will be nonsense.
We can ask whether he really issued the directive, but if we ask whether the contents of the directive is a truth or not, I don't understand the meaning of the question at all.
To a directive, we can decide whether we will obey it or not, but we can't evaluate whether it's true or not.
Directives aren't propositions in the terminology of logic. Only propositions can be asked whether they are true or not.
To a statement such as "If we assume communism, our economy will grow at the rate of more than five percent," we can evaluate its veracity, but to a person who says "Whatever happens, I want communism," I can only say, "As you wish."
Statements like "There are no absolute truths" cause unnecessary confusions by sloppy use of terms. Objective facts are absolute truths. So, there are absolute truths.
