User:Blue Hoopy Frood/Essays/Terminology

===Terminology=== Main essay: Terminology

I use the following definitions of terms, in contrast to Wikipedia usage.

factual proposition
An objective claim that is either true or false, once terms are adequately defined. The truth value need not be known, or, indeed, knowable.

For example, “There are billions of galaxies in the universe, each with billions of stars,” is a factual proposition. So is, “The world rests on the back of a turtle.”

fact
An objective claim that is objectively true. Strictly speaking, humans do not deal with facts, since our understanding is always filtered through flawed senses and reasoning. However, various propositions are backed by such compelling evidence that they can be treated for practical purposes as fact.

For example, “The earth is roughly spherical,” can be readily verified by anyone who boards an airplane (or a spaceship), and thus can be considered reliable fact. Of course, “The sun rises in the east and sets in the west,” is also verifiable fact, from a different perspective.

belief
One person’s understanding or view regarding a factual proposition. If two people hold contradictory beliefs, at least one of them is wrong (or, as often happens, they are defining terms differently).

For example, it is my belief that the universe is billions of years old or more. I have acquaintances who believe the universe is roughly 6000 years old. At least one of us is wrong.

One group of people might believe, “Bats are more similar to mice than birds,”, while another group might believe, “Bats are more similar to birds than mice.” Each group is likely to maintain that they are right, and the other group is wrong (and foolish). This is because similar is not adequately defined, and the statements are therefore subjective.

theory
A formalized statement of a belief, using well-defined terms.

For example, “Bats have more DNA alleles in common with mice than birds,” approximates a formal theory, objectively true or false. (It happens to be true, if I’m not mistaken.)

scientific theory
A theory that can be tested empirically and repeatably. Being scientific does not make a theory true, just as being unscientific does not make it false.

For example, “A multiverse of infinite parallel universes exists,” is a non-scientific theory, since it cannot be tested (at least not by anyone in this universe).

In contrast, “All matter is composed of atoms,” is a scientific theory, once matter and atom are adequately defined. Numerous repeatable experiments have been documented confirming its veracity, and various technologies rely on atomic theory. However, various non-atomic phenomena such as stars and black holes must be accounted for if the universal statement is to be accepted.

“The universe is permeated with non-atomic (“dark”) matter that cannot be seen or otherwise discerned.” might at first glance appear to be non-scientific (and in conflict with atomic theory). However, scientists have come up with experiments to test the theory through observation of the effects of dark matter particles, thus qualifying it as scientific. (So far, all experimental results have been negative.)

opinion
One person’s view on a subjective (i.e., non-factual) matter. Two people can hold contradictory opinions without either being “wrong” in any scientific sense.

For example, it is my opinion that raisins are delicious. It is my wife’s opinion that raisins are disgusting. Likewise with chocolate ice-cream. Neither of us is wrong (although I find her opinions hard to fathom).

value
A personal conviction about what ought to be, rather than what is. Values are like opinions in that they are by nature non-scientific (although they may be informed by scientific observations). However, they are like beliefs in that people conceive of them as true or false, right or wrong; and opposing values do not readily co-exist.

For example, it is a strong value of mine that people should always be respectful toward others and seek to understand their point of view; loosely WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPOV. Indeed, the Five Pillars, like most rules and laws, are codified expressions of values. One cannot validate them scientifically. Once cannot change the mind of someone who does not hold such values through reasoned argument; although one can sometimes enforce behavior consistent with official values.

The most torturous conflicts are over values, not facts. Few dispute that much of the world is in poverty, however poverty is defined; or that many Americans lack access to decent health care. However, people disagree mightily about what ought to be done about it. People cite various alleged facts to support their positions, but ultimately it comes down to values. Woe to the nation whose leaders’ values are self-serving, corrupt, and abusive; and shame on those whose values placed them there.

faith
An expression of trust, usually in a source of information, that allows one to hold and act on beliefs and values based on little or no tangible evidence, or even conflicting with evidence. Even belief in scientific theories is ultimately based on faith, either in one’s own senses, or in the testimony of respected scientists.

It is faith that allows me to believe that the universe is billions of years old, and humans are descended from fish. I have no evidence for these beliefs other than the testimony of strangers; nor means to convince anyone who does not share my faith.

point of view
Wikipedia conflates all of these terms into POV, as do I occasionally for convenience. However, it then uses opinion interchangeably with POV. While I try in general not to quibble over definitions, I believe that this conflation of terms leads to confusion. In my opinion, the distinctions should be maintained, because I value clear communication.

Likewise, Wikipedia plays fast and loose with the term fact, treating it as synonymous with orthodox theory. I wonder how many currently accepted “facts” future generations will look back on, and laugh at our ignorance.