事實與原則(1)-事實的定義


事實，是最簡單的概念，人人都懂。一般來說，事實用來表示1)已經發生的事情；
2)或存在的狀態。作為哲學家的休莫在<人類理智論>這有一段著名的句子(Hume famously 
writes at the beginning of Section IV of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding)
: “All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided 
into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact”。也就是，
他認為，人類理智的對象和概念的聯繫，是事實唯一的來源。我將事實定義為簡單
事實和複雜事實兩種，區別它們如下：


I：簡單事實
現象 = 本質
時空在一點
非過程
非人為
可重複


II：複雜事實
現象！= 本質
時空限定
人為
過程
不可重複


從另一個角度看，事實又可從自然科學的對象和社會人文學科的對象兩種。必須注
意的是，凡是事實，其根本的特徵是其“條件性”，即所有事實都是“偶然性”的，
因而是有缺陷和不完美的 - 由此引伸到“原則”的重要，以後會涉及。複雜的事實
(Compound Facts)和摸態邏輯的事實，又引入了假設的概念，將“已知的事實和將
要發生的事實”聯繫起來了。舉兩個例子。


如，“如果你喝下毒藥，你就會喪命。”。事實是，你在聽我講話時，你沒有喝下
毒藥(否則你就聽不見我的話了)。但如果你這樣作，你的死亡就是事實了。這誰也
不會懷疑。再有，<論範例>說：“人生獸始”。如果發展這個思想，我可以說，
“群生獸國”。這是什麼意思？它是說，一群人，一個部落，一個山頭，一個種族，
甚至一個國家，都像一個人生來必然與動物無大的區別一樣：這是事實。無論“獸”，
還是“獸國”，都是原始的，未開化的，野蠻的，還沒開始被“文明感化”的人群。
在個人，就是沒有文化，沒有科學知識，沒有現代社會的人文理念。在集體，就是
“Law of Jungle”，弱肉強食，以強躪弱，政府欺壓個人，社會的強勢集團壓迫弱
小集團。中國五千年的歷史到今天，仍然沒有擺脫這種未開化的“叢林法則”。人
民大眾仍然被自己組織的政府所“管轄”-用黑格爾的話(Philosophy of History)是，
這個集體仍然沒有擺脫“異化”造成的惡果，因為在中國近代史上，從來沒有類似
歐洲近代“啟蒙”之類的，大眾的文明進化的思想運動。


這些例子都是事實。但它們是“有過程，有結構，有系統”的“人為”事實。在沒
有完成這個過程前，是粗糙，原始，簡單，未開化的事實。它們區別與簡單的事實。
簡單的事實，其特點是與人的行為，“毫無干係”。這樣的事實，基本等於“客觀
真理”。在中國傳統文化中，沒有客觀真理的概念。雞叫與太陽升，不存在本質的
聯繫，即沒有因果關係。很多人不懂這個“客觀真理”的概念，正如許多網友表現
的。如果我說“範例哲學是如何不得了！”，他們立刻火冒三丈，我的祖宗三代立
刻被牽到了我的面前。如果有人說，推崇範例的人“不具備基本的邏輯思維能力”，
他們就會立刻彈冠相慶手舞足蹈，好像“範例”一眨眼就變成了“餿飯粒”了。他
們不會學着西方人那樣，輕描淡寫地說一句，“That's just your personal opinion.”，
無論別人怎麼看。但從另一方面看，他們也許沒想到，觀點的產生，還真不是“廢

話一堆”。這是因為事實的產生過程是：“心動-念生-存在-事實”: 事實來自原則，

事實的產生是個過程。

(待續)


=============================
FYI：


維基百科關於事實的一段：


Etymology and usage


The word fact derives from the Latin factum, and was first used in English 
with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.
[1] The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" 
dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[2]
Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, 
falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It 
is a fact that the cup is blue or Matter of fact,[3] and "... not history, 
nor fact, but imagination." Filmmaker Werner Herzog distinguishes clearly 
between the two, claiming that "fact creates norms, and truth illumination".[4]
Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, 
such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the 
fact of the matter is ...").[5][6]
Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something 
that may or may not be a "true fact",[7] (e.g., "the author's facts are 
not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has 
a long history in standard English.[8]
Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, 
including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable 
from matters of inference or speculation.[9] This use is reflected in the 
terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission"
).[10]
Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may 
be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote "If in other sciences we should 
arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us 
to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."[11]
Fact in philosophy


In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. 
Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions 
of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, 
a state of affairs.[12][13]
Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true.[14] Facts 
may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. 
The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about 
the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.[15]
Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads 
to fallacy in rhetoric,[citation needed] in which one person will say his 
or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such 
statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting 
the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."
[dubious ǔ discuss]
Correspondence and the slingshot argument
Engel's version of the correspondence theory of truth explains that what 
makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact.[16] This theory 
presupposes the existence of an objective world.
The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for 
the same thing - the truth value true. If this argument holds, and facts 
are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive 
conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth".[17]
Compound facts
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction 
composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations.[18] For example,
 the fact described by the true statement "Paris is the capital city of 
France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, there is such a place 
as France, there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France 
has a government, that the government of France has the power to define 
its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be 
the capital, that there is such a thing as a "place" or a "government", 
etc.. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves,
 may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France.
Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts 
of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts.[19]
Factǔvalue distinction
Main article: factǔvalue distinction
Moral philosophers since David Hume have debated whether values are objective,
 and thus factual. In A Treatise of Human Nature Hume pointed out there 
is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ought to be the 
case to be derived from a series of statements of what is the case. Those 
who insist there is a logical gulf between facts and values, such that it 
is fallacious to attempt to derive values from facts, include G. E. Moore, 
who called attempting to do so the Naturalistic fallacy.
Factualǔcounterfactual distinction
Main article: counterfactual conditional
Factuality ù what has occurred ù can also be contrasted with counterfactuality 
ù what might have occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or 
subjunctive conditional is a conditional (or "if-then") statement indicating 
what would be the case if events had been other than they actually are. 
For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater 
than Rome". This is to be contrasted with an indicative conditional, which 
indicates what is (in fact) the case if its antecedent is (in fact) true 
ù for example, "if you drink this, it will make you well".
Such sentences are important to Modal logic, especially since the development 
of Possible world semantics.
Fact in science


Further information: scientific method and philosophy of science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact sometimes referred 
to as empirical evidence is central to building scientific theories and 
fundamental questions regarding the natural phenomena of Nature, scientific 
method, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.
In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable 
observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended 
to explain or interpret facts.[20]
Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation 
(details below). Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful 
to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions 
of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term 
is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.[21]
Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences 
have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental 
nature of scientific fact.[22] Pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:
the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted 
as such;[23]
whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered 
truly independent and separable from one another;[24][25]
to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation;[25] 
and
to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, 
rather than a strictly systematic methodology.[26]
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert 
"fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn points 
out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires 
the use of other theories. For example, the age of fossils is based on radiometric 
dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a 
Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process. Similarly, Percy Williams 
Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism,
 which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily 
defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.
Fact and the scientific method
Apart from the fundamental inquiry into the nature of scientific fact, there 
remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, 
established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific 
method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent of 
the observer: no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers 
will agree on the outcome.[28] In addition to these considerations, there 
are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation,
 that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in 
scientific study.[29]
Fact in history


Further information: Historiography
A common rhetorical clich□states, "History is written by the winners". 
This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing 
of history.
E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History?, argues that the inherent 
biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical 
perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean," 
of which we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is 
below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would 
be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any 
facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of 
our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital 
role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably 
made up by the compilation of many different bias of fact finding - all compounded 
over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective 
method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of 
the present with the past - and that one's methods of fact gathering should 
be openly examined. As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore 
change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that).
Fact in law


Further information: Evidence (law) and Trier of fact
In most common law jurisdictions,[30] the general concept and analysis of 
fact reflects fundamental principles of Jurisprudence, and is supported 
by several well-established standards.[31][32] Matters of fact have various 
formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.
These include:
an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a cause of action;[33][34]
the determinations of the finder of fact after evaluating admissible evidence 
produced in a trial or hearing;[35]
a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an appellate 
court;[36] and
any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to 
establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.
[37]
Legal pleadings
Main article: Pleading
A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations 
of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and 
particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil 
procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding 
the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes 
invoke alternative pleading.[38] In this situation, a party may plead separate 
sets of facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually 
exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts 
may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) 
that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends 
on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts.[39]