For example, despite my carefully chosen examples, the substantial agreement to the first question, whether facts about the material world are discovered or created, is not what I was expecting. This is fine, but when something is not what we expected, we like an explanation, so perhaps a few of the people who checked the "Both" option there could explain their reasoning.
Also interesting was that while half of us (50%) think that moral and mathematical facts have more in common than either has with material facts, there seemed to be some different ideas on the independent questions about those two types of facts. Again, some explanation would be useful.
_______________________________________
My question is:
On what basis, for what reasons, did you give the answers you gave on the survey this morning?
___________
Reference
So that the record of our initial responses is not changed, I've turned off responses for the form we used in class, but there is a copy of the form here if you would like to see the exact questions.
For me,
ReplyDelete1st question about Facts about the material world
Based on my answers, I think most of the examples are found as they already exist except the example about trees at Chamchuri square that is created by human being because these trees are able to be planted by human at the place human built. That’s why I answered “both discovered and created”.
2nd question about Facts of mathematics
I answered “both discovered and created” again since the laws of mathematics naturally exist and are not created by human. But when people have discovered them, they have also created mathematical symbols to represent such laws. So, I answered like that.
3rd question about Moral facts
This question seems to be the easiest one for me because I quite surely think that morality is the thing people define by themselves, leading me to answer “created”
4th question
I chose the first choice "Material and mathematical facts" as my answer because of the similar reasons I mentioned in question 1 and 2.
Note: I answered all questions as I said above based on my understanding about your definitions of “discovered and created” at that time. Yet, now I am not sure if such my understanding in those definitions for answering your questions is correct.
Thank you Feem. I had something slightly different in mind for question 1, but I agree with your explanation there. I made up the examples to emphasize that we discover the world as it is, but you are right that we are also one of the factors that make it as it is, such as by planting trees in front of Chamchuri, and this fact is then discoverable by others, such as ourselves when we walk into the building every day.
DeleteI'm less sure that I agree that creating symbols to state a law is the same as discovering that law of mathematics. That is, I think the facts of mathematics are the laws, not their representation in varying symbols. It was, for example, always a fact that for a right angle triangle, a^2 + b^2 = c^2, and this was true before Pythagoras or anyone else used a set of symbols to write it down to communicate their understanding to others, or to themselves.
If we decided to redefine our moral concepts so that it was perfectly OK to kill for fun or to enslave people and use them like cattle, would that actually change the morality of those actions, or would it only change the way we think about them? Similarly, if a dictator decided that 2+2=5, and forced an entire society to follow that new definition, would the universal belief change the mathematical facts, or would everyone be wrong?
If moral facts are whatever individuals (societies?) define them to be, that suggests a very simple solution to all moral problems - redefine everything to make it morally good and don't worry about trying to change human behaviour or other more difficult solutions. (This is a very brief response to a complex set of questions - I think your idea can be developed a lot more to account for my suggested objections here, but at a cost.)
The answers to the last question surprised me the most. I happen to agree with the majority, but I'm wondering what their reasons are for thinking that mathematical and moral facts have something in common that is different in the case of facts about the material world. Hopefully, some explanation will be forthcoming.