What is the difference between a fact and a finding?

[Leigha]

Not sure where to ask this question, so I selected this sub-forum. 

I was reading a science article earlier, whereby the author is claiming that he is providing the reader, ''facts.'' The comments that followed under the article, seemed to express much different opinions. Many stated ''Bob, I wouldn't consider these facts, they seem more like findings.'' And then he (the author) retracted, replying to the comments that he shouldn't have characterized his ''findings'' as ''facts.'' The article was mainly about human behavior, and how this particular human behavior that he was describing was considered to be evolutionary, and not behavior that had been culturally learned.

When it comes to science - when can we safely assume that something be considered a fact, as opposed to a finding?

[Syne]

A "finding" is just a conclusion someone has reached. A "fact" is a verifiable observation. A conclusion, hypothesis, or theory is a proposed explanation for some set of observations.

So a "fact" can be found by anyone, using the same methodology. But "findings" must build acceptance over time, as more "facts" accumulate to support the conclusion.

[Leigha]

Okay, thank you - so my next question is...when you're reading an article, and there are factual studies and references at the end of it, and throughout the article the author presents his research as facts, when is it safe to assume that what you're reading is factual or merely a conclusion that one, particular author has reached? (it didn't seem like just his opinion (or finding), because I looked at the studies and they seemed to confirm what he was asserting in his article, for example)

[Secular Sanity]

Okay, thank you - so my next question is...when you're reading an article, and there are factual studies and references at the end of it, and throughout the article the author presents his research as facts, when is it safe to assume that what you're reading is factual or merely a conclusion that one, particular author has reached? (it didn't seem like just his opinion (or finding), because I looked at the studies and they seemed to confirm what he was asserting in his article, for example)

The peer review process attempts to separate fact from speculation or personal opinion.  Was it a peer reviewed article? Was it published in a reputable journal?

The Peer Review Process

[Yazata]

What is the difference between a fact and a finding?

 
A 'fact' is an existing state of affairs. Very roughly it is what we think of as 'reality'. Truth and falsity don't apply to facts, they simply are (if they aren't, they aren't facts).

A 'finding' is a stated result of a research inquiry. It can be either true or false. I think that 'conclusion' is usually used for the final result of a research inquiry, while 'finding' is more like 'lemma' in a proof, a preliminary and partial result.

I was reading a science article earlier, whereby the author is claiming that he is providing the reader, ''facts.''

Certainly the intention of a scientific inquiry is to produce results that are true, that correspond to and correctly represent the facts of whatever it is that is under investigation. But since science is a human activity and is a matter of belief, it is always going to be an approximation to whatever the facts are. Science (or the product of science at least) is a system of human beliefs that attempts to model the facts of reality.

The comments that followed under the article, seemed to express much different opinions. Many stated ''Bob, I wouldn't consider these facts, they seem more like findings.'' And then he (the author) retracted, replying to the comments that he shouldn't have characterized his ''findings'' as ''facts.''

The objection in the comment was a good one and the author responded appropriately.

When it comes to science - when can we safely assume that something be considered a fact, as opposed to a finding?

I'm inclined to give propositions, and the beliefs that they express, informal plausibility weights. They range from near zero (almost no chance of being true) to near one (almost certain to be true). I'm inclined to treat zero and one, infallible certainty of falsity or truth, as cognitive ideals that are probably never reached in real life. In other words, a scientist or a science writer calling a scientific conclusion a 'fact' is just posturing boastfully in my opinion. (Or else it's an unfortunate choice of words, as in this case you describe.)

In science things like experimental verification and mathematical derivation from highly weighted theory can increase the weight that I think (and the scientific community as a whole typically thinks) a scientific proposition has. Personally, I'm especially persuaded by consilience. That's when very different lines of inquiry, based on different theoretical assumptions and employing different experimental/observational methods, arrive at the same results regarding the same thing. For example, paleontological examination of fossils and analysis of molecular genetic DNA sequencing data might point to the same phylogenetic history for a particular kind of organism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Unfortunately, this tendency of mine to assign weights to propositions (a tendency that I think is shared by most people, including scientists) is informal, based on individuals' intuitive assessments of the likelihoods of things. That introduces a huge element of subjectivity into science. One of the more active research areas of contemporary epistemology is the attempt to formalize this kind of epistemological weighting process.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/

[Syne]

Okay, thank you - so my next question is...when you're reading an article, and there are factual studies and references at the end of it, and throughout the article the author presents his research as facts, when is it safe to assume that what you're reading is factual or merely a conclusion that one, particular author has reached? (it didn't seem like just his opinion (or finding), because I looked at the studies and they seemed to confirm what he was asserting in his article, for example)

Unless you are satisfied to accept them on authority alone, each referenced study must be scrutinized as well. His findings may seem supported by these, but these may not be as factual as they seem. And it's always important to ask whether any other conclusion could also fit the facts presented. When supporting his findings, he is likely to cherry-pick studies, albeit perhaps unconsciously, that confirm his assumptions. So you may have to seek out studies that arrive at other conclusions from the same facts.

It is always important to play devil's advocate, whether by actively seeking out disagreeing findings or engaging with people who do not share your assumptions. But like I said, many are happy to trust the peer review system, even though it tends to be fraught with the same sort of mutually enforcing biases. Luckily, if the finding is important enough, it seems to garner plenty of scrutiny.

[Leigha]

Okay, thank you - so my next question is...when you're reading an article, and there are factual studies and references at the end of it, and throughout the article the author presents his research as facts, when is it safe to assume that what you're reading is factual or merely a conclusion that one, particular author has reached? (it didn't seem like just his opinion (or finding), because I looked at the studies and they seemed to confirm what he was asserting in his article, for example)

The peer review process attempts to separate fact from speculation or personal opinion.  Was it a peer reviewed article? Was it published in a reputable journal?

The Peer Review Process

It wasn't a peer reviewed article and one of the commentators suggested that when it comes to human science, studies are often flawed and without peer review, they are far from facts. The author of the article was immediately humbled it seems, and like I mentioned above, retracted that it is a fact. He went further to offer his critics that he ''assumed'' they were facts based on the research that he did, but apparently one of the people who commented, claimed that he knew of the professor mentioned in the author's research, and that his work is little more than geared towards his confirmation bias. 

I'd agree that only science articles that have been peer reviewed, are trustworthy in terms of their validity. What is a little disconcerting, is if I hadn't read the comments provided by readers under the article, or if there simply weren't any, I'd think this article was based on factual evidence, when in reality, the research for it came from a ''professor'' that isn't revered by many in the science community, and has a reputation for confirmation bias.  Maybe this is because I don't analyze human science articles in the same way as I might another genre, but the accountability to make sure that what I'm reading is truth, is on me.

---

What is the difference between a fact and a finding?

 
A 'fact' is an existing state of affairs. Very roughly it is what we think of as 'reality'. Truth and falsity don't apply to facts, they simply are (if they aren't, they aren't facts).

A 'finding' is a stated result of a research inquiry. It can be either true or false. I think that 'conclusion' is usually used for the final result of a research inquiry, while 'finding' is more like 'lemma' in a proof, a preliminary and partial result.

I was reading a science article earlier, whereby the author is claiming that he is providing the reader, ''facts.''

Certainly the intention of a scientific inquiry is to produce results that are true, that correspond to and correctly represent the facts of whatever it is that is under investigation. But since science is a human activity and is a matter of belief, it is always going to be an approximation to whatever the facts are. Science (or the product of science at least) is a system of human beliefs that attempts to model the facts of reality.

The comments that followed under the article, seemed to express much different opinions. Many stated ''Bob, I wouldn't consider these facts, they seem more like findings.'' And then he (the author) retracted, replying to the comments that he shouldn't have characterized his ''findings'' as ''facts.''

The objection in the comment was a good one and the author responded appropriately.

When it comes to science - when can we safely assume that something be considered a fact, as opposed to a finding?

I'm inclined to give propositions, and the beliefs that they express, informal plausibility weights. They range from near zero (almost no chance of being true) to near one (almost certain to be true). I'm inclined to treat zero and one, infallible certainty of falsity or truth, as cognitive ideals that are probably never reached in real life. In other words, a scientist or a science writer calling a scientific conclusion a 'fact' is just posturing boastfully in my opinion. (Or else it's an unfortunate choice of words, as in this case you describe.)

In science things like experimental verification and mathematical derivation from highly weighted theory can increase the weight that I think (and the scientific community as a whole typically thinks) a scientific proposition has. Personally, I'm especially persuaded by consilience. That's when very different lines of inquiry, based on different theoretical assumptions and employing different experimental/observational methods, arrive at the same results regarding the same thing. For example, paleontological examination of fossils and analysis of molecular genetic DNA sequencing data might point to the same phylogenetic history for a particular kind of organism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience

Unfortunately, this tendency of mine to assign weights to propositions (a tendency that I think is shared by most people, including scientists) is informal, based on individuals' intuitive assessments of the likelihoods of things. That introduces a huge element of subjectivity into science. One of the more active research areas of contemporary epistemology is the attempt to formalize this kind of epistemological weighting process.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formal-epistemology/

Thank you for this - I'm not sure why the author wished to pass this article off as fact. But, at least he didn't quibble over it, when a few people corrected him. Using your wording above, I want to believe that his passing this article off as fact was in fact, a poor word choice, and yet again, if no one called him out on it, would people assume that what he was stating was truth? Is this how pseudo-science gets passed off as truth? There's something to think on.

With the internet, there is so much misinformation out there being passed off as factual, and no one stops it. In this case, some astute readers caught his ''mistake.'' lol

---

Okay, thank you - so my next question is...when you're reading an article, and there are factual studies and references at the end of it, and throughout the article the author presents his research as facts, when is it safe to assume that what you're reading is factual or merely a conclusion that one, particular author has reached? (it didn't seem like just his opinion (or finding), because I looked at the studies and they seemed to confirm what he was asserting in his article, for example)

Unless you are satisfied to accept them on authority alone, each referenced study must be scrutinized as well. His findings may seem supported by these, but these may not be as factual as they seem. And it's always important to ask whether any other conclusion could also fit the facts presented. When supporting his findings, he is likely to cherry-pick studies, albeit perhaps unconsciously, that confirm his assumptions. So you may have to seek out studies that arrive at other conclusions from the same facts.

It is always important to play devil's advocate, whether by actively seeking out disagreeing findings or engaging with people who do not share your assumptions. But like I said, many are happy to trust the peer review system, even though it tends to be fraught with the same sort of mutually enforcing biases. Luckily, if the finding is important enough, it seems to garner plenty of scrutiny.

Another conclusion definitely could have likely fit, just as well as the one he presented. That's a great point. I thought this while reading the article, that he might be assuming too much, but went with it, because I liked what the author had to say as perhaps I was conflicted with my own confirmation bias on the topic. ~ lol ~

Curious, considering what you feel about the peer review system, how do you personally feel satisfied enough when reading a science article, that it's in fact...factual?

[Leigha]

I ask this question on sci forums as well in the same thread I shared there...''can something be both a finding and a fact?''

[Syne]

Another conclusion definitely could have likely fit, just as well as the one he presented. That's a great point. I thought this while reading the article, that he might be assuming too much, but went with it, because I liked what the author had to say as perhaps I was conflicted with my own confirmation bias on the topic. ~ lol ~

Curious, considering what you feel about the peer review system, how do you personally feel satisfied enough when reading a science article, that it's in fact...factual?

I'm generally skeptical of everything at first. The newer the "facts" the more skeptical. Factual observations have to be verified by others to make sure they're not a fluke. I'm even more skeptical of studies, especially if their methodology is not available for scrutiny. If you cannot find their methodology, then you have to wonder how anyone could repeat what they've done to check for the same results. And if they do explain their methodology, it needs to be heavily scrutinized. Especially in the social sciences, the wording of questions and priming of participants can have a large effect.

[Leigha]

Found this link while looking for something else - from the article:

Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets.

/end thread? lol 

Not really, but just another opinion with respect to what we're talking about here.



http://prospect.org/article/scrutinizing-science