Class Seven: Facts, glorious Facts!

Class Seven

September 18, 2012

IMPORTANT UPDATE:  
Please go to the class website and download the file:

Doug A SSDI Order (LRW ID420).pdf

Please print it off and bring it to class on the 18th of Sept.

Introduction to Facts

Facts are statements about the state of existence, most often about the physical world.  Often conclusions, rules and predictions masquerade as facts, so it is important to distinguish facts from other components to an argument.  

Conclusions masquerading as Facts

The statement, “The House is dirty” is not a statement of fact but rather a conclusion.  How is it dirty? What makes it dirty?  If the statement does not answer those questions then it is a conclusion masquerading as a fact.  Used clothing is strewn on the floor.  Food smeared plates filled the sink.  These are facts that lead to the conclusion that the house is dirty.

Rules masquerading as Facts

The statement, “If you don’t eat; you will die” is in fact a rule.  While it may very well be a true statement, it is not an assertion about the state of existence.  Rather it is a declaration of cause and effect. 

Predictions masquerading as Facts

The statement, “Wold Population will double in thirty years” is a prediction about the future and therefore a Conclusion - not a fact.

Factual Considerations

When dealing with facts in arguments, there are FOUR broad considerations that will be useful later on in attacking or defending an argument.  These are (1) the type of fact; (2) The Category of the Fact; (3) The Ranking of the Fact; and (4) The Certainty of the Fact.

Types of Facts

Facts come in several types.  While certainly not an exhaustive list, the most common are:

1. The Character or nature of a thing.  For example, it was black. It was night. She was a blonde. 

2. The Existence or Non-existence of a thing. China exists.  There was no blood in the house.

3. The Metric of a thing.  There are twelve gallons.  53% of people support Free Speech.

4. The Action of a thing.  Jim ran.  The rock fell to the earth.

Categories of Facts

For purposes of the Gentle Art of Argument, facts may be grouped into four categories:

1. Supporting Facts - those facts that make a conclusion more likely.

2. Contradictory Facts - those facts that make a conclusion less likely.

3. Irrelevant Facts - those facts that make a conclusion neither more nor less likely.

4. Neutral Facts - those facts that support competing conclusions.

Ranking of Facts

Depending upon the issue and the rule, certain facts will be more important to support the conclusion than other facts.  When arguing, you are better attacking (or defending) a weak alleged supporting fact whose truth is central, if not critical, to the End-Point-Conclusion.  The Rankings are:

1. Outcome Determinative Facts - Facts if established to be false, would also necessarily make the End-Point-Conclusion incorrect.  
2. Critical Facts - Facts if established to be false would reduce the likelihood that the End-Point-Conclusion is correct to less than 50% but still technically possible.  If a sufficient number of Critical Facts are disproven then  the End-Point-Conclusion would likely become impossible.
3. Important  Facts - Facts if established to be false would support a competing Conclusion and reduce the certainty of the End-Point-Conclusion to probably but not certain.  (51% to 75%).  If a sufficient number of Important Facts are disproven then the End-Point-Conclusion would fall to improbable (Less than 50%) or below.
4. Peripheral Facts - Facts if established to be false would slightly tweak or modify an End-Point-Conclusion but not call into question the central message.
5. Unimportant Facts - Facts if established to be false, would have no effect upon the validity of the End-Point-Conclusion.  

Certainty of Facts

You will find most arguments center upon the validity of the claimed facts as well as the rules.  In most arguments you will deal with facts that cannot be established with meta-physical certainty.  While I do not subscribe to the pseudo-intellectual musings that “reality is unknowable,” it is a fact of life that we can have differing degrees of confidence in different facts.  For the purpose of arguments, there are eight levels of certainty:

1. Undisputed - Facts that both sides concede to be true.
2. Certainly True 90% or more;
3. Highly Probable 75% or more;
4. Probable 51% of more;
5. Unlikely 35% or more;
6. Improbable but worthy of consideration 5% or more;
7. Possible but unworthy of consideration less than 5%;
8. Unknown or speculative, that is, cannot state with any level of certainty to truth or untruth of a proposed fact.

The percentages assigned above are for illustration purposes only since there is no verifiable way to distinguish between a fact that is 89% true compared to 90% true.

The Critical Nature of Facts

In most arguments, the facts are the most important part of the argument.  This is particularly true if the rules applied to the facts have been universally adopted.  If the issue does not involve subjective preference, then the outcome must hinge upon the facts alone.  

In legal arguments, spend most time on developing the facts – the Judges (for the most part) know the law (adopted rules) already.  What the Judge doesn’t know are the facts of your particular case.  If you gave the judge a choice to read only one part of your legal brief – he or she will read the facts only. 

Methodology of Facts

Introduction to Methodology of Facts

I used the phrase “determined facts” instead of just the word “facts” in the components of an argument,  This reflects the reality of argument that the factual premises supporting an argument must be ascertained and assumed to be true in order to support the End-Point-Conclusion.  How a Determined Fact is discovered and proven is called the the Methodology.

When considering the merit of an Argument, you are actually focusing upon the methodology used to establish determined supporting facts.  Understanding the different types of methods to determine a supporting fact will help you assess the validity of the End-Point-Conclusion.

The Four Methods to Determine Facts

Facts can be determined based upon four categories of methods:

1. Personally observed.  These facts have been determined based upon the arguer’s actual experience as determined by one or more of the five senses.  Example:  I went into this parking lot and there were four red cars.
2. Personally determined or calculated.  These facts have been personally ascertained, not necessarily through the exercise of the five senses, but rather arrived at based upon the use of investigation, calculation, estimation using tools, methods, adopted rules, and possibly other necessary but separate facts.  For example, I can calculate the area of a square if I know the length of the radius. 
3. Sourced Facts.  The facts have been claimed by another person or authority.  Often this is the most common source of facts for us in life as well as argument.  We rely upon information given to us by others.
4. Assumed and Unsupported.  These facts have been determined using no declared, or acceptable form of methodology.

Since the certainty of the fact depends upon the methodology to ascertain it, you attack the methodology used to determine that fact.

PERSONALLY OBSERVED FACTS

These are facts where the individual claims to have personally saw the event occur (or not) or the existence (or non-existence) of a thing.  In court, lay witnesses can only testify about facts about which they have personally observed through one or more of the five senses.  

In arguments, there are two common distinctions about personally observed facts:

Personally observed facts are obtained without using any sort of tool or calculation.  It seems to be a small distinction, but it is an important one.  When considering the validity of a personally observed fact the focus will be entirely upon the credibility of the person.  When a tool or calculation is used then the focus may also be upon the tool or calculation used.  Example:  I weighed the bag of rice and it came to two pounds.  In this case you can challenge not only the credibility of the person, but also the accuracy of the tool used.  

Personally observed facts are frequently used to extrapolate that observation to other unobserved similar situations/things/people.  Example: I gave a panhandler ten dollars, but then saw them use it to buy liquor.  Panhandlers don’t use the money for food - they use it to buy booze.  Here the argument extrapolates a personally observed observation to apply to other unobserved panhandler.  

Both of the above arguments rely upon the next category of fact: The Personally Ascertained Fact.

PERSONALLY DETERMINED OR CALCULATED FACTS

Personally determined or calculated facts are statements about reality that have been ascertained by means of investigation.  An investigation utilizes (1) one or more tools; and (2) a protocol.  

Tools can be as simple as a ruler and as complex as an MRI.  When discussing the tools used, several questions can be posed:  Is the tool in good condition? Has it been calibrated? Is it universally used?  Does the tool have error rates?  Are there better tools in use?  

A protocol is the procedure used to conduct the investigation.  What tools must be used? What standards must be used?  What steps must be taken?  Are there error rates?  Are there competing protocols or is this particular protocol universally adopted?

In addition to scrutinizing the choice of tools, and protocols, you may also examine whether the person properly used the tool and correctly followed the protocol.

SOURCED FACTS

Sourced Facts are the most common “methodology” to obtain the information we know and rely upon every day.  These are facts that we did not ascertain for ourselves, but instead have relied upon an outside party to establish.  Example:  Not having ever been to South Africa, I cannot personally vouch for its existence.  However I believe that the country exists based upon what others have told me.

When relying upon (or attacking) sourced facts the following questions can be used to evaluate the validity of the assertion:

1. How does the source know about the fact?  Can it be drilled down to someone who personally observed, or personally ascertained/calculated the fact?
2. If it is personally ascertained/calculated are the notes, protocol and tools used available to be considered?  Example:  If a poll says that 75% of Americans prefer Vanilla Ice Cream - what was the sample size?  How was the sample selected? What was the question used?  All of those question would help determine the accuracy of the assertion.
3. Does the source have bias or a motive?
4. Is the source generally reliable with other assertions?
5. Has the source’s assertions been subjected to other review?  What was the result of those reviews?
6. Are there other corroborating independent similar findings?
7. Are there other contradictory findings?  
8. Is the assertion universally adopted? Overwhelming Majority adopted? SImple Majority adopted? Plurality adopted?

The above list is not exhaustive, but simply a few areas of inquiry that can support or undermine a claimed sourced fact.

ASSUMED AND UNSUPPORTED FACTS

Asserted facts that have not been determined by personal observation, investigation or other source are unsupported.  Unsupported facts, also known as assumptions, are worthless in any disputed argument.