Axioms, Definitions, and Alternate Facts.

Things I don't understand:

Consider freedom, a word that is a rallying cry for all kinds of actions that might suppress rather than engender freedom. What is freedom? How is it defined? If it means what you think it does, would freedom ever need a modifier like relative or absolute? Does the word mean the same thing to everyone?

Robert Frost said "You have freedom when you're easy in your harness."

My interpretation of what Frost means is that if the constraints of society and the limitations imposed on you by your body, beliefs, abilities, etc., do not rest too heavily on you, then you feel free. Can we demand freedom for ourselves and yet deny it to our fellows? The hand you feel lightly on your shoulder may be an intolerable burden crushing your brother or sister. If you think there is an easy answer, then you're reading the wrong post.

Defining words is not always easy. If a definition is intended to inform someone, then that definition must make use of words the person understands. Ideally, the definition should embed the concept in a larger category already familiar to the person. Finally, the definition should add details and refinements that distinguish the concept being defined from other concepts that fall into the same category. I would call such a definition a good definition.

What may not be obvious is that it is impossible to give every word, every concept, a good definition. Why? We would need an infinite number of bigger categories each subsuming another. As finite humans we must at some point realize our limitations and accept a word, a concept, as a biggest category, and as such, that word, that concept cannot have a good definition. Instead, we attempt to define such primitive words with examples, counter-examples, synonyms, pointing, and violent hand-waving. These words and encompassing concepts though lacking good definitions become useful for defining other words.

For the same reason, not every new fact can be proven by a reasoned reference to already established facts. Somewhere we draw the line in our reasoning, and say we accept this statement of fact without a demand for proof.

Hence if X and Y are real numbers, then we accept without proof that X+Y = Y+X although we may offer numerous specific examples of why this is a good assumption (AKA an axiom, a postulate or a self-evident truth). Similarly, we may accept a tenet of religious beliefs without proof, We adopt a constitution without proof.

However, for sound reasoning, the most dangerous type of self-evident truth is not the one that is unworkable or otherwise flawed. With sound reasoning, those flaws may eventually reveal themselves and be corrected. Rather a tenet that remains unstated is the most dangerous assumption because it is not available for examination and refinement.

I recently read a meme titled Did You Know which then continued with a discussion about how "motivated reasoning" makes it almost impossible to change someone's mind with facts, even when the observed world clearly contradicts the "alternate facts" the other person references. Anyone using Facebook would have come to the same conclusion without ever encountering the concept of "motivated reasoning" as the underlying cause Motivated reasoning sounds like a person has something other than "regular" reasoning. 

IMHO, modified reasoning is only one explanation for the inability to persuade a person to change their minds. Consider that changing one's mind can be far more difficult than changing underwear or even changing a mode of reasoning. Also, few things are more stubborn than unstated assumptions hitched to poor reasoning.

Here is my response to "Did You Know?":

If you title your meme Did you know? then you imply that the reader already agrees with the statement that follows or that the reader is ignorant or perhaps even stupid. After "Did you know" comes an undocumented information dump where the readers' eyes glaze. So whatever you say afterwards may be un-digested. One of Spock's jobs in the old StarTrek series was to dump background info in the opening teaser so that they could get more quickly into the action. However, I don't recall Spock ever prefacing that info dump with "As you know, Captain."😉

IMHO, the problem of convincing a person invested in alternate facts is deeper than suggested by "motivated reasoning" conceit. I will concede that generating motivation may be needed to persuade a person to alter their view of reality, but reasoning isn't the only issue.

If facts are where we, those of us engaged in a debate, agree to stop searching for truth, then the alternate-fact folks have already stripped away the effectiveness of any argument that can be made to them. If they do not agree with your basic facts, your axioms formed by your un-provable assumptions and adopted definitions, then reasoning whether it is "motivated" or not cannot sway them. Their logic may or may not be bad, but their underlying premises differ from yours, and these premises make up their world view.

Primitive definitions, Assumptions, Axioms, Postulates, "We hold these truths to be self-evident," The Bill of Rights, The Ten Commandments, etc. are such proposed basic, un-provable "facts" adopted as operating tenets from which definitions and reasoning allow us to extend what we believe is true and from thence, construct models to explain how things work in the "real" world.

Psychology terms aside, alternate facts, alternate definitions, and reasoning of some kind, leads to a mind set on an alternate reality model, a model that may have little to do with making good prediction or explaining what we see. Given alternate facts and definitions, belief in the resulting model of reality may be difficult to shake, no matter how much observation conflicts with the predictions of the adopted model because that person has a vested interest in the basic tenets that underlie the model, not just the current counter-examples offered. Some of those basic tenets may be unstated, others may be misunderstood, and some may even be ambiguous. For example, consider the meaning of "a well-regulated militia."

What is usually missing is that when a model fails to predict real world observations or outcomes AND our reasoning has been sound, then the fault must lie with our assumptions (adopted facts or axioms) that formed the building blocks on which we base our model. The unwillingness to study reality in order to improve and refine the model and the inability to use reliable reasoning methods can result in terrible modelling flaws in which the model will never be improved.

But, some people will never be able to alter their basic assumptions, their underlying postulation of "facts" without some wrenching experience like Paul on the road to Damascus. Even that might not be enough. Many folks are willing to sacrifice their children on the altar of their basic assumptions (Abraham and Isaac). Please note that the U.S. Constitution lays out our basic assumptions, our tenets, about how government should operate. It was a pretty good first model. However, the constitution has been amended 27 times in order to refine or improve the model. The laws that congress writes, the crimes in society, the health and well-being of our citizens, etc, are outcomes observed and used to measure whether our model for a government lives up to the promises made for it in the Declaration of Independence.

Pointing out the flaws in someone's model of reality can be done in terms of inconsistencies, hypocrisy if you prefer, by determining their basic assumptions and definitions and highlighting where these are inconsistent with other aspects of the model. Unfortunately, the usual response is name calling and the bad logic of "What about such and such on your side."

Arguing that your assumptions are better than their assumptions and should produce a better model are not likely to work because there are few ways to test such assumptions in advance. Finally, some assumptions remain unstated and as a result cannot be examined. These are the dangerous axioms, the ones that even the adopter may not realize they have adopted. As a result, there is little hope that these unstated assumptions can be examined and improved to better conform with observations of reality.

This is why mathematicians study simple things like numbers and shapes. Human beings and their social institutions are just too damn complicated and inconsistent.

But you already knew that, right? Right?