to CunningMongoose:
1) I still think that is lukcy to us that descartes and leibniz do good mathematics, because his philosophical thinking seem (at least to me) as emoty of merit.
2)Thoeritical phisyc is physics, why not?
3)Oh intrinsecal property, you have a good point, but Science always try to reduce the postulates to the minimun, aristotle saw a rock falling say what he said and start to rest (again is the method that bottered me)
4)You seem like a person really concern about the things, maybe is my experiences with philosophers, and let face it the majority of philosopher in history make such claims that is imposible nnot to wonder how the hell they was thinking? and how somebody name it wise?
I would love to read your personal believe about science.
5) maybe i misunderstand the word ontology, maybe the meaning of that word have changed whit time, can you explain to me ( I will read about it.. someday for now i am busy with my tesis XD)
1) I think you would find there is a lot in Leibniz's ontology worth keeping and perfectly sound regarding modern physics.
2) Yes. It is. It is also philosophy. Think about the intersection of two sets, if you wish. It's part of both.
3) Yes, mesoscopic scale was wrong. The logical apparatus is still (in part) good.
4) Yes, they did, As did a lot of scientists. Remember Ether? Remember Einstein's refusal to agree with the results of quantum theory. People are human, they make funny claims that way.
My personal belief about science? Ergh, I don't know. It rocks?
5) Ontology is, basically, determining by mean of logic whose entities are real and whose are not in order to make sense of reality. For example, in what sense does a number exist? Do we need to postulate an infinity of possible worlds to make sense of counterfactual claims? (A question echoed in quantum physics) Is there a need for universals or can we get by just by potulating particulars?
Okham's razor is probably the best know example of an ontological principle, and it is still used in science.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO Science and philosophy are two sides of the same coin. Science at it's root teaches us to try to understand the world and philosophy at it's root teaches us HOW to think. Without one the other breaks down. Both are also changing, learning, and growing as new facts and ideas come about. What we know now is greater than what the Greeks knew. They were just as smart as us, but they did not have our knowledge base. ~grins~ Yes, that can be expanded and improved, but I was just trying for MY short form.
No. Just No.
Facts are data. Theories are constructed to explain data and tested by making predictions of other data.
Yes.
Scientific Theory- a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed
Fact-something known to exist or to have happened
We know that evolution is true because of the vast mountains of evidence for it.
The fossil record is fact. The similarities and differences in DNA between species are facts. Evolution is the theory that explains these things (and many others).
And does it so well that we know that it happened: thats what a scientific theory is. Its something with vast predictive and explanatory power that has been tried and tested over and over again without a single error.
1) Q: How do we deal with genetic engineering of humans?
2) A: Two ways, allow for people to retain their authenticity. 1) Allow for negative eugenics to take place. 2) Do not allow for positive eugenics to take place. Rationale: One threatens a person's authenticity, while the other improves quality of living.
3) No irrationality detected.
No special insight detected either. He made up and assumed a quality of humans that lead to his conclusion rather than simply making up and assuming his conclusion.
And does it so well that we know that it happened: thats what a scientific theory is. Its something with vast predictive and explanatory power that has been tried and tested over and over again without a single error.
1) Evolution is a theoritical construct about a set of established facts and able to make predictive claims about similar facts.
2) Evolution is a biological process still taking place today.
1 is a theory.
2 is a fact. This fact is a "big fact" outside the scope of practical verification. It can't be tested, not because it is not a fact (de jure), but because we lack the mean to observe evolution due to time constraint (de facto). Lets call this big fact a "derived" fact.
2) well that is semantic ¬¬4) Aether was a valid assumption, you know, when a single entity coul (in theory) explain heat,magnetism, optics, electricity is worth to think about it. But is the empirical failure of finding aether that led phisysics to forget that idea.
Whatever the reason you postule something is the experiment, the empirical fact that validate or invalidate the postulates.
Again is the mehod that counts to me.
2) Yes, we use words to explain things. If you know a mean to explain things without semantics, please let me know.
4) Yes it was a valid assumption. It was false, not invalid. Scientific method is about finding way to test the truth (true/false properties) of assumptions. Philosophy is interrested in validity itself (logical soundness) of theories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4)but that is empty, the logical soundness does not say to us anything. Everything is posible until you start to discard the ones that do not adjust to empirical facts.
But without imagining things that are possibly untrue you don't have hypotheses to confirm or refute. If something is logically unsound you can dismiss it without having to experiment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The challenge was not to prove that philosophy is always right, just that it has bearing on the world, correct? Let's not move goalposts.The goalposts are firmly planted, thank you.
The challenge was, as the song says, "what is it good for"
Your contention was that it was good for getting rid of slavery. My counter point that it was just as good for keeping slavery as it was for getting rid of it. If you claim the roach catapult is good at getting rid of roaches because it catapults 20 roaches out but it also lets 20 roaches in you have a serious problem.
Again I think you're confusing and conflating what philosophy is. Philosophy is not a physical object. It's not the chains that kept slaves enslaved. Philosophers argued and reason prevailed; there is no slavery. Again, philosophy is the argument itself.
So, to answer your question, what is it good for? Absolutely everything. Every function of our democracy relies on it, most aspects of the social sciences rely on it, as does the foundation of the scientific method.
Btw, science doesn't blow things up. Technology is what you seem to be talking about. Science is "good" for nothing since it is pure knowledge. The application of that knowledge to better mankind, turn a profit, kill some prick, etc. is technology. So I put it to you, if science is merely a body of knowledge and the methodology to uncover new knowledge and the knowledge itself does not change the world, what good is it?
We all know the answer, but it's an apropos counterbalance to your own question.
2) I mean you won that conversation because you name it. theoritical physic is philosophy, so I a physic myself have to acpet that philosophy is good becaus if i say is wrong physics is wrong.
4)but that is empty, the logical soundness does not say to us anything. Everything is posible until you start to discard the ones that do not adjust to empirical facts.
2) I'm not trying to "win" anything here. And yes, you are doing philosophy. At least, until the late 19th century, you were. French and German Academia then, for political and ideological reasons, tried to define philosophy as a complete and independant curriculum. It failed, because the reasons had nothing to do with philosophy, and everything about politics.
Congratulation, you are now a physicist and a philosopher! Is it not great! You are tackling fundamental problems in your field - call that philosophy of physics or theoritical physics, it's the same. It was always that way exept for the 20th century, and the false separation is starting to crumble away!
4) Empty? Yes. Everything is possible? No. Unsound theories are not possible. See the is to gives to science empty but sound theories, so that science can fill them and see which one fit reality the best. What does science gain? Saves time not trying to fill impossible theories. Is not that great?
Observing what, though? What counts as repeated observation given that we can never step into the same river twice?
Whoa, dude, that like, totally blew my mind. :O
But without imagining things that are possibly untrue you don't have hypotheses to confirm or refute. If something is logically unsound you can dismiss it without having to experiment.
4)but that is empty, the logical soundness does not say to us anything. Everything is posible until you start to discard the ones that do not adjust to empirical facts.
But think about every posible thing is not a good method. The good way is to think of what you know about the world and then choose what do you think is the better explanaition. Then you will test your explanaition to see if they correspond to nature, repit until you discovery the right one.
The key is to "see" the world before to decide what seems to be the explanaition.
And so the circle goes.
Science - I have those facts and that new theory, but there could be any number of explanations about why this theory is that way.
Philosophy - Well, it seems there is only 4 logical explanations.
Science - Great I'll test them!
Later - Seems explanation number 2 was the best, because of new fact X, but now, I could have any number of explanations for this revised theory.
Philosophy - Well, it seems there is only 2 logical explanations for that!
Science - Ok, I'll test them!
And so on...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But think about every posible thing is not a good method. The good way is to think of what you know about the world and then choose what do you think is the better explanaition. Then you will test your explanaition to see if they correspond to nature, repit until you discovery the right one.
Whoa, you mean you should use REASON to decide what is the best and most efficient course of action? Like...you sound like a philosopher now!
That's precisely what you're doing. You're saying we should construct a working model of the world, from cause to effect, based on what we believe will logically follow. We believe what will logically follow based on repeated observation.
That's called constructing a hypothesis. It's also called constructing a rational argument, which is precisely what philosophy aims to do. The working model is based on philosophical thought/rational arguments. The rest is just filler (observable natural phenomena). Just because it doesn't always succeed (see science/ether, Einstein/quantum theory) doesn't mean that the entire school of thought is hogwash.
@CunningMongoose-I'm glad I have an ally in this thread, attempting to bring light to the barbarians beside me, who is far more knowledgeable than I.
So if I use reason to decide somthing I am doing philosophy? I disagree, reason and logic existed before philosophy.
Be rationale is not the same as to be philosopher, most of the times is quite the opposite
1)Not formal reason. Just do some very basic searches on the subject. I'm willing to be proven wrong, however. Show me formal reason before philosophy.
2)You're conflating how you feel about philosoPHERS with philosoPHY. Philosophy is the process of applying formal reason to abstract and often unverifiable assertions. As far as I know Newton was a dick and beat his wife. Doesn't mean that things fall up.
So if I use reason to decide somthing I am doing philosophy? I disagree, reason and logic existed before philosophy.
No, see, they were born together. Somewhere in Greece (in fact in Ionia, Asia Minor) around 650 B.C.
Granted, technical reason and basic math existed before that, but theoritical (logical) thinking about natural reality and philosophy were the same thing for more than 2000 years. Francis Bacon introduced the idea of empirical tests, then math got more use as a tool for doing natural philosophy, and at the turning of the 19th century, for political reasons, French and German academia divided philosophy from science.
And because of those political reasons, now we have scientists doing philosophy in their respective fields, but thinking they are doing only science because they don't have a degree in philosophy.
@CunningMongoose-I'm glad I have an ally in this thread, attempting to bring light to the barbarians beside me, who is far more knowledgeable than I.
Thanks. But I don't consider honest mistakes to be barbaric ;-)
As for being more knowledgeable, I don't know. Am I?
How has the thread not yet Godwinned?
How has the thread not yet Godwinned?
You Nazi!
Yeah, I have the same problem. But then, philosophy is part of reality, so...
B
There is functionally no difference between the definition of a fact and the definition of scientific theory. Evolution is both.
No. A fact can't be refined, revised or more simply be true or false.
This is incorrect. You can measure the planet and find that its circumference is 40,000 km. When you get a bigger astrolabe or whatever you can figure out its 40,075 km and when you break out the GPS satellites you can figure out that its 40075.017 km and is also slightly squashed so the polar circumference is smaller. Oh, and its all kind of bulgy here and there, so any actual measurement needs about 20 asterixes.
It can only be or not, and is subject to empirical experience. It's what makes a theory true of false: what we call the verificator of a theory.
We who? Philosophers of science?
A scientific theory by definition has already been verified out the ying yang. Don't confuse it with a hypothesis.
Fact : Fossils exists.
Theory explaining the fact: evolution.
Life on earth evolved gradually beggining with one primitive species. It branched out over time, throwing off new and diverse species. The mechanism for most of this change is natural selection by differential reproduction.
This is a fact. Facts are not relegated solely to data.
Since you're not going to beleive me
-We can say then that evolution was a theory, (albeit a strongly supported one) when first proposed by Darwin, and since 1859 has graduated to "facthood" as more supporting evidence has piled up. Evolution is still called a "theory" , just like the theory of gravity, but its a theory that is also a fact- Jerry A Coyne, Why Evolution is true.
I don't know what definition of fact you're using, but it doesn't appear to be the one used in science.
Funny - They are the rules you are talking about, and no, they did not fit into one piece of paper at first, it came with refinement in the theory and notation. What you may now put on a page took a lenghty book to establish and proove.
ANd again, philosophy is horribly inefficient at proving anything. It was a major breakthrough when you could feel comfortable asserting your own existence philosophically.
Philosophy may use mathematics as a tool. Physics does it all the time, do you mean physics is worthless for doing so?
He didn't just use math as a tool. He had to use math because using philosophy left it too open to the vaugarities of language- which is where most of philosophy gets hung up.
Einsteins ideas dropped out of attempting to explain the speed of light in a vacume: experiments.
To the space problem? : showing there is two way to logically describe the same phenomenon. Framing the problem. Science did the testing. Newton's test (the bucket) was later proved flawed by Einstein who went back to the alternative and devised the equations to go with it.
Newton and Einstein were scientists (well, newton was an alchemist sceintist mathematician philosopher) I really don't see what philosophy has to contribute to
Philosophy is good at giving science a set of logically plausible hypothesis, scientist are good at giving back the good one to philosophy, opening new fields for new hypothesis, and etc. See it as a circular process between both disciplines.
I don't follow you.
I really don't like kant.
Mereology, is helping reworking the way a computer can "understand" spatial relations - it has application in recognition systems, for example. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/.
Reading that will require more cafine than i have on hand at the moment. Will look at it tommorow.
Again I think you're confusing and conflating what philosophy is. Philosophy is not a physical object. It's not the chains that kept slaves enslaved. Philosophers argued and reason prevailed; there is no slavery. Again, philosophy is the argument itself.
Philosophers argued on both sides of the matter. It was finally decided by one group having more guns than the other, the same way most things are decided.
So, to answer your question, what is it good for? Absolutely everything. Every function of our democracy relies on it, most aspects of the social sciences rely on it, as does the foundation of the scientific method.
The PHILOSOPHICAL foundation of the scientific method relies on it. ANd be honest, science by and large only plays lip service to the philosophy. Scientists say they don't technically prove anything, but they're all too willing to get on planes designed by the law of thermodynamics.
Btw, science doesn't blow things up. Technology is what you seem to be talking about. Science is "good" for nothing since it is pure knowledge.
Its pure knowledge about the world. If all we find out is that some dinosaur was X feet long then great.
The thing is that philosophy is only internal. Philosophy figuring something out matter about as much as a rules revision to an RPG i don't play.
______________________________________________________________________
Science - I have those facts and that new theory, but there could be any number of explanations about why this theory is that way.
Philosophy - Well, it seems there is only 4 logical explanations.
Science - Great I'll test them!
Try this.
Science: Hey, I just spent 2 years running painstaking experiments and i think i have a few ideas!
Philosopher: great! I'll help you reformulate those ideas and then get partial credit for it!
Science: So you'll then help me with the 5 more years of testing i'm going to need to do to answer all these questions?
Philosopher: Nope! i'm just going to sit here and think.
Science: chucks philosopher out the window.
Seriously, you make it sound like the science department can't do their own thinking. They're quite capable of that, and thinking on their own is much easier than trying to fill a philosophers head with the requisite knowledge and math they would need to figure out a problem in modern physics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, you make it sound like the science department can't do their own thinking. They're quite capable of that, and thinking on their own is much easier than trying to fill a philosophers head with the requisite knowledge and math they would need to figure out a problem in modern physics.
Actually, Mongoose and I are saying the precise opposite. Scientists participate in philosophical thought (and are hence philosophers in their own right) as a matter of course while doing sciency things. Separating the two is creating a false dichotomy.
Try to keep up ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is hilariously recursive.
well, scintific make science AND philosophy, so what remains to the philosopher?Seriously, you make it sound like the science department can't do their own thinking. They're quite capable of that, and thinking on their own is much easier than trying to fill a philosophers head with the requisite knowledge and math they would need to figure out a problem in modern physics.
Actually, Mongoose and I are saying the precise opposite. Scientists participate in philosophical thought (and are hence philosophers in their own right) as a matter of course while doing sciency things. Separating the two is creating a false dichotomy.
Try to keep up ;)
I have no idea what this jumble of nonsense is supposed to mean.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is hilariously recursive.
I know, right?
People who think philosophy is good and important attempting to make rational arguments to support their claims, and people who think it's bad and dumb falling into logic traps.Though, being only human, the thread is beginning to make me contemplating ragequitting in a flurry of ad hominems :)
Scientific do science, nobody else do science. and you said that they also participate in philosophical thougt, the one philosophical thougt that matters, the only one that can be proven right or wrong, the only that can be made objetive and sitematic, not just an opinionthen, what is the area of expertise of a philosopher? what they give to science? is scientific do Science AND the philosophy of science why to have philosophers?
I'm sorry, I'm just not going to respond anymore. Your broken English makes my head hurt and I'm having great difficulty divining your meaning.
Actually, Mongoose and I are saying the precise opposite. Scientists participate in philosophical thought (and are hence philosophers in their own right) as a matter of course while doing sciency things. Separating the two is creating a false dichotomy.
I think the problem here is you're trying to equivocate between philosophy and all thought. The scientist, oddly enough, can do the thinking part of his job without ever taking a philosophy class. Philosophy can't simply say "I'm synonymous with all thinking!" and take credit for everything.
The definition i gave for philosophy (which has been ignored) is that it is primarily speculative. A scientist breaks this rule on two ends: 1) is that they get their ideas from data-Einstein (about as close to a science philosopher as you can get) came up with his ideas trying to figure out how to explain an observation about the speed of light, and his ideas were then tested against reality. That cuts down on the speculation.
How has the thread not yet Godwinned?
Well, someone trotted out the ol' Nietzsche influenced the Nazis, so, there, philosophy sucks!
Also: Hell is you (not necessarily Evil Lincoln, but all of you) and you make me nauseous.
Also: No matter how many not helpful posts I post, I can't get the (XX new) tag to appear. Is it now possible for a thread to ignore a poster?!?
I think the problem here is you're trying to equivocate between philosophy and all thought. The scientist, oddly enough, can do the thinking part of his job without ever taking a philosophy class. Philosophy can't simply say "I'm synonymous with all thinking!" and take credit for everything.
Yes he can. Because philosophy is an integral part of science. The contemporary academic way of organising thing is in this case misleadind. Has been for about a century. For bad political reasons and ideology, philosophy was made a independant discipline. It is not.
Philosophy is not synonymous with all thinking, but certainly with logical, ontological, analytic and dialectic thinking, which are part of every science.
You are naive to think scince suddenly went "free" of philosophy when a bunch of politicians decided philosophy was to have its own faculty in universities a century ago.
The definition i gave for philosophy (which has been ignored) is that it is primarily speculative. A scientist breaks this rule on two ends: 1) is that they get their ideas from data-Einstein (about as close to a science philosopher as you can get) came up with his ideas trying to figure out how to explain an observation about the speed of light, and his ideas were then tested against reality. That cuts down on the speculation.
Yes, on two end. In between, he uses philosophy (among other thinks, like maths). This peculiar mix of testing, formal and mathematical thinking and logical elaboration we call science. Philosophy is part of this complex process.
Philosophy is speculative, sure! But being a speculative thing, it does not mean it can't speculate about reality in a way that is profitable to science.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...
You can make rabbit fur sweaters. They're quite nice, in fact.
Madness I tell you!
Rabbit fur you say?
well, scintific make science AND philosophy, so what remains to the philosopher?
Scientists do math AND science, what remains to mathematicians?
Using philosophical tools in a scientific process is not the same as doing pure philosophy.
When you do science, you also do maths. Does not mean the mathematician is useless.
No. A fact can't be refined, revised or more simply be true or false.This is incorrect. You can measure the planet and find that its circumference is 40,000 km. When you get a bigger astrolabe or whatever you can figure out its 40,075 km and when you break out the GPS satellites you can figure out that its 40075.017 km and is also slightly squashed so the polar circumference is smaller. Oh, and its all kind of bulgy here and there, so any actual measurement needs about 20 asterixes.
It can only be or not, and is subject to empirical experience. It's what makes a theory true of false: what we call the verificator of a theory.We who? Philosophers of science?
A scientific theory by definition has already been verified out the ying yang. Don't confuse it with a hypothesis.
Then your fact was false because of a bad measure. It did not change the fact. The fact was not revised. A fact is true of false, and only that. (And that is badly formulated, we should say a fact is something that makes a proposition true or false (the verificator), and that a theory is the logical coherence of a set of propositions)
We who? Yes, we philosopher of sciences. If a mathematician was saying to you you misundertood a mathematical concept in your science, and that your terminology was badly used, would you argue?
Why argue with the philosopher who say the same thing to you?
Oh, I know, because you are an expert in the field and can't be wrong, surely! Because, you know, you start by begging the question and by assuming that philosophy is worthless, so you assume everything a philosopher can say about science is also worthless.
Sorry, but no. The difference between a fact and a theory is not something you can change to suit your argument. It's a factual difference, and can't be revised. As you can not decide the mathematician who tells you there is a difference between the concept of a Rational and the concept of a Real number is wrong.
Maybe it won't change the result of your equation (aund you probably can do physics just right not knowing the difference) but the difference is still a mathematical fact.
You may do science just fine ignoriging the difference between a fact, a theory and what a verificator is. Won't change the fact there is a difference.
And scientific theories have never been verified. Facts partaining to and predicted by this theory have, giving the theory a reason to stand.
A completely verified theory is not only practically impossible, it's logically impossible - because you can only verify facts, and indirectly, assume your theory is good because the facts are verified.
Newton's theory was a sound theory, in which all facts were verified, until new facts forced Einstein to devise a new theory.
Then your fact was false because of a bad measure. It did not change the fact. The fact was not revised. A fact is true of false, and only that. (And that is badly formulated, we should say a fact is something that makes a proposition true or false (the verificator), and that a theory is the logical coherence of a set of propositions)
This is epistemic nihilism.
The fact was not false. It was simply less accurate than it could have been with better techniques. Techniques are always getting better. By your definition the circumference of the earth is not a fact we know because we don't have it down to the last picometer.
Actually.. even then we can never get the circumference right because it keeps changing, and it will change every time you look at it because the earth actually bends and shifts a tiny bit thanks to the moon.
Science can deal with a level of imperfection. It HAS to.
We who? Yes, we philosopher of sciences. If a mathematician was saying to you you misundertood a mathematical concept in your science, and that your terminology was badly used, would you argue?
Would depend on whether i had the number at the end right.
I do respect mathematicians (somewhat). They have an objective right or wrong and most importantly they have a trash can: there's a method for objectively wrong ideas to get tossed out.Why argue with the philosopher who say the same thing to you?
The same reason that I argue with biblical experts who tell me the bible is the word of god.
I do not respect philosophers. What you do is entirely subjective, not subject to disproof, not particularly useful, and as you're demonstrating, completely unable to deal with reality. Your definition of a fact is effectively a null set for anything that science has to deal with. You're trying to hold science to a standard of evidence so high that it took you 1800 years to justify the existence of your own mind.
In short you're functionally a literary critic that can't write. You're complaining that a book falls short your idea of perfection, but have nothing to add to make the book better much less perfect.
You're also wrong. I'll take an actual scientists word over what a fact is rather than yours.
Also keep in mind you're simply claiming to be a philosopher of science. I have no Idea what your qualifications are.
Oh, I know, because you are an expert in the field and can't be wrong, surely! Because, you know, you start by begging the question and by assuming that philosophy is worthless, so you assume everything a philosopher can say about science is also worthless.
Its an investigative process. You know.. science (sort of)
Hypothesis: Philosophy is useless. There is no use for philosopy(which is rough because i'm trying to find a negatove)
Experiment: search for a use for it.
If we find a use then the hypothesis is false. If we can't it has a good chance of being true.
Its sort of like the search for bigfoot. At this point i think we would have found him if it was there.
A completely verified theory is not only practically impossible, it's logically impossible - because you can only verify facts, and indirectly, assume your theory is good because the facts are verified.
And this is why i think philosophy is both arrogant to dictate terms to science and useless. By this binary ideology there is no difference between a scientific theory and a mere hypothesis: both are less than completely verified.
If complete verification is impossible why on earth should I care about attaining it?
Philosopher is brought it for an experiment. He's put on a chair and told it will move halfway towards a banquet table every minute. "Thats ridiculous!" he replies "I'll never reach the table!
Biologist is brought in for the same experiment and gets his knife and fork ready. Researcher asks "Aren't you worried you'll never get there?" Biologist says "I'll get close enough for all practical purposes"
Oddly, scientists are aware that measurements are inexact, thus scientific measurements are usually given with a tolerance or precision, sometimes only implied. Starting with a circumference of 40,000 km with a precision of 3 significant digits and then refining the measurement to 40,075 km with a precision of 5 significant digits doesn't mean the first measurement wasn't a fact.
Refinements
Yes they are aware of that. The measurement is still not a fact, it's a measurement of a fact. That is why it can be inexact and refined - because the measurement can change, the fact no.
Or are you saying the precision of the measurement IS the fact? Meaning you are defending epistemological relativism?
You see, for a mesurement te be refined, you have to have something that won't change, a fact (The circumference of the earth at 10 pm, october 9, 1997) that is needed to compare two measurements and decide which one is closer to the truth.
Don't get me wrong, a sound theory is able to cope with imperfect measurements. Does not mean you don't need reality to be what it is in order to revise and get a better measurement later.
Come on guys, even wikipedia got this right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact