Information, Evidence, Fact, Interpretation

Are Nietzsche and I on the same page? Maybe, maybe not.

Information, Evidence, Fact, Interpretation

Note: Leaving aside aggregation for a few minutes and returning to the original conception of the site, a study of knowledge and belief, or as I whimsically describe it guerrilla epistemology. So, as a philosopher, I lack the chops, but on the other hand, the writings of most philosophers are so unnecessarily unclear, so arcane¹, that there is little percolation into the general consciousness, or into my consciousness (limited though it may be). As always, caveat lector².

Preface

In graduate school, I was having a discussion with a couple of my colleagues, bright fellows both of them. I asserted that the “facts” on some topic (no longer remember it and it is irrelevant) showed that such and such a conclusion followed. My office mate, B.C., a self-desribed polymath, piped up and said something along the lines of “there are no facts, only interpretations.” Our friend, S.C. supported him in this position.

To say I was perplexed would be to put it too mildly. Nevertheless, that moment stuck with me, for more than four decades now. I think I finally understand it, and agree with it. Here is a little essay on it.

No Facts, Only Interpretations

The claim is attributed to the German Philosopher Frederick Nietzsche that there are no facts, only interpretations. Whether or not he said this is no longer contentious; see below. Let us examine what it might mean to assert this.

We shall do so within the context of information as the generic concept, delivering evidence, which must be interpreted; evidence being any information we can use to draw conclusions from, make inferences from. I suppose we might define facts as evidence we regard as true. The are dictionary definitions, and we can see these, below.

Western analytic philosophers over the generations have discussed these ideas. Did I mention unclear and arcane above? Or follow the link here. I rest my case.

So, given that we have information, we may use it as evidence of something else, and if we regard it true, we can call it fact. In order to do any of this, we must interpret this evidence within the framework of our current understanding of language, of words and sense data or information, our current beliefs about the world, out current biases towards certain positions, assertions, our current emotional investment in some of our beliefs, our current state of mind, and probably other factors pertaining to our ability to reason. Psychology is really more important than epistemology.

So, two people, given the same evidence, may reach diametrically opposed conclusions about its import, its meaning.

In addition, I want to make it clear that understanding and bias are different, although related, concepts. Understanding is closest to interpretation, and all interpretations will be biased by the factors mentioned above.

Also, we seldom, perhaps never, have all relevant information on any slightly complex topic, some of the information we have may well be wrong inadvertently, and some of the information may just be lies.

So, given this, our interpretations will be fraught with error on the whole, and to call something a fact makes some perhaps unwarranted presumptions over the quality of the information, and also about the capabilities of the persons doing the interpretation. We just are not all that good, on the whole, in understanding the world. This may seem unduly pessimistic, but I think it is a fair statement about our human limitations. All bets are off if we are dealing with the omniscient one.

The position taken by Nietzsche (in so far as I understand him) and myself, is to argue that there is no such thing as objectivity, and there cannot be. It would seem to be a wild claim, but I believe it is in line with skeptical thinking.

This certainly contradicts much of western thought, but I believe it to be a clear implication of the position of “no facts, only interpretations.”

Here is an article giving the core of Nietzsche's claim, and a rather difficult academic philosophical discussion, which is as obscure and unclear as any other production by philosophers.

From https://www.teseopress.com/existenceandtheone/chapter/nietzsches-critique-of-positivism-the-dialectical-unity-of-the-existent/

Existence and the One TeseoPress

Boško Pešić • Pavao Žitko (editors) Nietzsche’s critique of positivism

The dialectical unity of the existent Marco Viscomi (Catholic University Center, Rome)

1. The prospective nature of positivism

Between the end of 1886 and the beginning of 1887, the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche notes in his private notebooks a lapidary thesis, asserting that “there are no facts, only interpretations”. Let us consider in the following passage the entire text, from which this notorious affirmation is extrapolated:

"In opposition to Positivism, which halts at phenomena and says 'There are only facts and nothing more,' I would say: No, facts are precisely what is lacking; all that exists consists of interpretations. We cannot establish any fact 'in itself'; it may even be nonsense to desire to do such a thing. 'Everything is subjective,' you say; but that in itself is interpretation. The 'subject' is nothing given, but something superimposed by fancy, something introduced behind. – Is it necessary to set an interpreter behind the interpretation already to hand? Even that would be fantasy, hypothesis. To the extent to which 'knowledge' has any sense at all, the world is knowable; but may be interpreted differently; it has not one sense behind it, but hundreds of senses. – 'Perspectivism'. It is our needs that interpret the world; our instincts and their impulses For and Against. Every instinct is a sort of thirst for power; each one has its point of view, which it would fain impose upon all the other instincts as their norm." -- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche in his private notebooks a lapidary thesis

Defintions From Dictionary.com

Here are dictionary definitions for the key terms of this article. As is usual in dictionary definitions, they are problematic, full of cicularity and do not lead to essential definitions.

https://www.dictionary.com/

information

• noun

  1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.

  2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.

fact

• noun

  1. that which actually exists or is the case; reality or truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

  2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

  3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

  4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

  5. Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance relevant to a case, as distinguished from the legal effect of that event or circumstance.: Compare question of fact, question of law.

• noun

  1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

  2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

interpretation

• noun

  1. the act of interpreting; elucidation; explication: This writer's work demands interpretation.

1. Arcane refers to something that is understood or known by only a select few who have specialized knowledge or expertise in a particular field or subject. It often implies that the information or knowledge is obscure, hidden, or not easily accessible to the general public. Arcane knowledge or practices are typically associated with secret or esoteric traditions and are not widely known or understood by the broader population.

2. Caveat lector is a Latin phrase that translates to "let the reader beware" in English. It is often used as a cautionary statement in written or spoken communication to alert readers or listeners that they should be cautious and exercise critical thinking when interpreting or evaluating the content that follows. In essence, it serves as a reminder to approach the information with a degree of skepticism and to be aware of potential pitfalls, inaccuracies, or hidden agendas. It encourages individuals to be discerning and not accept information blindly.