Fact is Fact. Fiction is Fiction - Latour Chapter 1: Further Reflections

I find it strange that the "Argument from authority" notion is so prominent within a culture that so boldly claims rights to wof truth and the discovery of "Fact".

Latour's account of the dissenter having to confront the controversy upstream by addressing "authority", the referenced texts that support, negate, and transform any given claim and the texts that later support the references on the claim is truly fascinating. Honestly, it reveals that the expectation of "Rightness" or "Fact" is EXACTLY the same with science as it is all the rest of the world's disciplines of study. This expectation holds that a lot of people have to believe the claim in order for it to be true "...literature [becomes] more technical by bringing in more and more resources]". With that said, it reveals a deeper philosophical notion that majority belief establishes truth. The power of a statement in politics, in academia, in the social realm, AND in science rests in how many people believe. If more people believe the statement than those who do not, mostly it is considered a fact. The most common reasoning behind this philosophical holding is that "well there has to be some reason why so many people this to be true."

As a tangent, this brings about another foundational element of the strength of a claim. The tenure of a given statement is taken into great consideration when evaluating it's "rightness". The reasoning is, "Well since this statement has been so widely reported for so long it must hold some truth if it not completely true." Science follows these statements as well. Latour's explanation of "transformation" from artifact to a form of tacit knowledge falls in line with this foundational element.

Knowing that scientific claims and discovery are no different from other phenomena in the world, in terms of expectation and understanding is disheartening. Why? Because Science claims to discover fact thus suggesting that fact and truth are. Things that must be discovered -- not made true and untrue by supporting claims of comrades. I mean the notion of truth in existence is comparable to God's existence: God said, "I am that I am. Tell them that 'I am' sent you," when talking to Moses. The point being that even if people are in consent or dissent with God's existence does not change the fact that He exists. God just is and that's all there is to it despite supporting and/or negating arguments. Truth just is, it's not a matter of support or the lack thereof.

The fact that science claims to be able to discover this yet relies so heavily upon consent and/or dissent is hilarious and quite annoying really. The majority of people believed that the world was flat. The majority of scientists believed that physical appearance and structure contributed to the status and intelligence of people within a society. We all know these to not be true and even when people did believe these statements to be true they weren't.

I wish that science would admit that authority arguments, references, an widely held claims and statements do not make something fact or fiction. Fact is fact. Fiction is fiction whether people agree or do not agree. Fact is fact despite hostile environment. Fiction is fiction despite hostile environment. All this means is that less people believe a statement to be true. But whether it is true or not does not rest in the hands of the readers or hearers of the information. A statement's USE is dependent upon the agreement or lack thereof of readers and hearers of the information.