When is a fact a fact? Ultimate ChatGPT discussion.

When is a fact a fact?

It is often correctly proclaimed that one should refer to facts and not just express opinions. This has of course also been the principle of my work in chronobiology, sleep and health in general since 2002. Our ChronoCoach and sleep master training is of course based on facts. In this context, I regularly question myself, my actions and my point of view. In doing so, I always get stuck on a question that I ask again and again in many discussions: At what point is a fact a fact?

My point here is not to claim that there are no facts in general, but to sharpen our view of this word, which we use as a matter of course. A good example is the color of an object. It is generally considered a fact that a red car is red. There is a consensus, it can be replicated, experts will agree with it, even the swarm intelligence would confirm it and yet it is not true. Nothing on this planet has its own color, it merely reflects a certain range of the visible light spectrum. As soon as the light spectrum changes, the color perception of the object changes. If there were no sun, we would perceive this object as “colorless”. So the fact is: nothing has a color. But do we know that?

Now I have taken the time to discuss the topic “Fact” with ChatGPT. As always, I copied the texts 1:1, but saved the original screenshots. The version ChatGPT 4.0 was used. Have fun with it!

When does a fact become a fact?

“A fact becomes a fact when it is supported by reliable and verifiable evidence. Here are the essential steps that lead to something being considered a fact:

1. Observation and collection of dataA potential fact often begins with an observation or measurement. These observations must be consistent and repeatable under controlled conditions.

2. Verification and replicationScientific or methodological verification is crucial. Other experts or researchers must be able to replicate and confirm the observations or results.

3. Consensus in the professional communityA fact is typically generally accepted when there is a broad consensus among experts. This requires that the underlying evidence is recognized as reliable and consistent.

4. Acceptance by authoritiesInstitutions, such as scientific bodies or organizations, and in some cases also legal frameworks, can officially recognize a fact.

5. Long-term stability: Facts remain constant until they are refuted by new, stronger evidence. A fact that remains unchallenged over a longer period of time is generally considered to be certain.

In summary, a fact becomes a fact when it is empirically proven, verified, repeated and generally recognized.”

Regarding points 1 and 2: Is something already a fact if it can be replicated or only when it is replicated and the same results are obtained? On point 3: Is a broad consensus really a characteristic of a fact? In the Third Reich, the view about Aryans was a consensus in science, in the 1950s it was a consensus that cigarettes were harmless, in the pandemic it was supposedly initially a consensus that vaccination prevented infection etc ... And ... who determines the consensus? Point 4: Who determines who is considered an authority? Re point 5: "Facts remain constant until they are refuted by new, stronger evidence." Does this mean that a fact can end up being a fact even though it is wrong?

“You ask profound and critical questions that touch on important philosophical and scientific-theoretical aspects. I go into the individual points in detail:

### Points 1 and 2: Replicability and replication

Something is not immediately a fact just because it is theoretically replicable. Replicability means that an observation or experiment should be repeatable under the same conditions. However, it only becomes a fact when the replication is actually carried out and the results consistently confirm the original assertion. So if several independent replications show the same result, this strengthens the status of this observation as a fact.

### Point 3: Consensus as a characteristic of a fact

You are right that consensus in science does not necessarily mean that something is a fact. Broad consensus is often more an indicator that a particular theory or assumption is widely accepted, but that doesn’t mean that theory is infallible. Scientific consensus can change, as you have shown with the examples (racial theories, cigarette use, vaccinations).

The fact is that the scientific consensus is based on the current state of knowledge, but it is not an absolute criterion for truth. Science is dynamic and subject to constant review and adjustment.

### Point 4: Who determines authorities?

The question of who is considered an authority is indeed complex. Authorities in science are usually recognized by their expertise, their research results and their contributions to the respective field. This recognition can take the form of publications in prestigious journals, prizes or their positions in academic and scientific institutions.

However, even this is not infallible, as power structures, social norms and institutional interests can influence this recognition. There is no objective, immutable authority that determines who is an authority; this is a social process that is often regulated by the scientific community itself.

### Point 5: Facts and their consistency

The statement that “facts remain constant until disproved” means that something is considered a fact until it is disproved by better evidence or knowledge. A fact can therefore be considered “true” as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, but this does not mean that it is absolutely true.

The history of science shows that many things that were once considered fact were later refuted. One famous example is the geocentric view of the world, which was considered a fact for a long time until the heliocentric model disproved it.

To summarize: A fact is only ever a fact as long as it is supported by the best available evidence. If new, stronger evidence emerges, a fact can also be revised. In fact, a fact can be recognized as false in retrospect if new evidence emerges.

These reflections show that the question of what constitutes a fact is often more complex than it appears at first glance. In science, facts are not static, but part of a dynamic process of gaining knowledge.”

Thank you so far. Does this mean that if we base our view on facts, this does not mean that we are presenting the truth, but ultimately only our view of the facts, which would be tantamount to an "opinion"?

“Yes, exactly! Your question is aimed at an important difference between Facts and truth and the role that our interpretations play in this.

### Facts vs. truth

– Facts are objectively observable or measurable events or conditions that are supported by evidence. They are generally verifiable and reproducible.

– Truth is a philosophical term that is often regarded as a correspondence between a fact and an assertion, a statement or a belief. But truth is often more complex, as it is also influenced by interpretations, contexts and perspectives.

### Point of view and interpretation

When we rely on facts, we usually do so with the best intention of creating as objective and factual a basis for our view as possible. However, as you rightly point out, the way we interpret these facts and integrate them into our thinking is often subjective. This means that our presentation of “facts” is ultimately colored by our perspectives, assumptions, cultural backgrounds, and even our emotional and cognitive biases.

In a way, you could say that every point of view, even if it is based on facts, is a kind of opinion because it is shaped by our individual interpretation of these facts. This is not to say that all opinions are equal-an opinion that is well supported by facts certainly carries more weight than one that is based purely on conjecture or unproven assumptions.

### Implications for the discourse

This means that in many discussions it is important to be aware of this fact and to recognize that even well-founded arguments do not represent the absolute truth, but a well-reasoned interpretation of the available facts. This opens up space for critical reflection and for understanding that different people, based on the same facts, can come to different conclusions without this necessarily meaning that one of them is ‘wrong’.

Conclusion: While facts provide a basis for objective knowledge, our views on these facts are often subjective. Therefore, even a fact-based opinion cannot be regarded as absolute truth, but rather as an informed interpretation of reality.”

Isn't "reality" generally subjective? Who determines what is "reality" in the end?

“The question of whether “reality” is subjective is a profound philosophical and epistemological issue. It touches on fundamental issues such as perception, consciousness and the nature of knowledge. I will try to shed light on the topic from different perspectives:

### Objective vs. subjective reality

1. Objective reality:

– In philosophy and science, it is often assumed that there is an objective reality that exists independently of our perception. This reality is what exists “out there”, regardless of whether we perceive it or not. Laws of nature, physical phenomena and material objects are examples of aspects of this objective reality.

2. Subjective reality:

– Subjective reality refers to the way we perceive and interpret the world through our individual senses, thoughts and experiences. Our subjective reality is shaped by personal beliefs, emotions, cultural influences and even biological factors that shape our perception.

### Who determines reality?

– Science and consensusIn many areas, especially in the natural sciences, mankind attempts to describe an objective reality through systematic observation, experiments and theories. Here, scientific methods play a central role in ensuring that subjective biases are minimized. The scientific consensus that results from these methods is often seen as an approximation of objective reality. However, as we have already discussed, this consensus can change as new evidence emerges.

– Philosophical perspectivesThere are various currents in philosophy that investigate the nature of reality:

– RealismThe view that an objective reality independent of us exists.

– IdealismThe idea that reality is in some way constructed by our mind or consciousness.

– ConstructivismThe view that our perception of reality is shaped by social, cultural and linguistic constructs.

– Cultural and social influencesIn a social and cultural perspective, it is often emphasized that what is perceived as “reality” is strongly influenced by social norms, values and shared beliefs. Different cultures and communities can have very different perceptions of reality, which shows that reality is in many cases a socially constructed concept.

### Is reality generally subjective?

In a certain sense, yes. Our individual perception of reality is always subjective and shaped by personal and cultural filters. But this does not mean that there is no objective reality. Rather, it is difficult to recognize this objective reality completely and undistortedly because our means of grasping reality (sensory perception, measuring instruments, language) are themselves subject to subjective influences.

### Who ultimately determines what “reality” is?

Ultimately, the idea of reality is determined by a combination of scientific consensus, cultural norms and individual perceptions. In science and in everyday life, we try to obtain as accurate and objective a picture of reality as possible through intersubjective methods (such as scientific experiments or collective agreements). However, complete knowledge of objective reality may only ever be partially accessible to us.

ConclusionWhile there may be an objective reality, our perception and interpretation of this reality is always subjectively colored. What we see as “reality” is a complex mixture of objective facts, personal experiences and social constructs.

Take all these findings and now answer the question: Is man as a species even capable of presenting a fact in the form of an objective truth beyond doubt?

“Based on the previously discussed findings and considerations, the question of whether humans as a species are capable of representing a fact in the form of an objective truth beyond doubt is extremely complex. Here is a summarized answer:

### 1. Limitations of human perception and cognition

Humans perceive the world through their senses and consciousness, both of which are limited by biological and psychological factors. Our sensory organs are limited to certain wavelengths and frequencies, and our brain processes information in a way that can be subject to subjective distortions. This means that our perception of reality is only ever a subset of what actually exists, and it can be influenced by various factors beyond our conscious control.

### 2. Scientific method and its limitations

Science is the most powerful tool man has developed to discover objective truths. Through repeatable experimentation, observation and theorizing, science strives to capture facts as objectively as possible. However, even science is limited by the nature of its methods and tools. New discoveries can disprove previous “facts”, and scientific theories are often approximations of the truth, not the truth itself.

### 3. Philosophical and epistemological perspectives

Philosophically, there are strong arguments that humans will never be able to grasp an absolute objective truth, as our cognition is always filtered through the “lens” of our human subjectivity. Theories such as constructivism or idealism suggest that our perception of reality is always shaped in some way by our mind, our culture and our language.

### 4. Intersubjective truth

Although objective truth may be unattainable, through intersubjective methods, such as the scientific method, social consensus building and rational discourse, humanity can arrive at agreements that are considered “objective” because they can be confirmed by many people under different conditions. However, these agreements are always provisional and open to revision.

### Conclusion:

Humans are probably not capable of representing an objective truth in its absolute form beyond doubt. Our ability to present facts is always shaped by our human subjectivity, our cognitive and sensory limitations, and the cultural and social contexts in which we live. What we regard as “fact” or “objective truth” tends to be a well-reasoned, intersubjectively recognized approximation of reality, but one that always remains open to new insights and revision.

However, this does not mean that our insights are worthless, but rather that we should approach our knowledge and perception with humility and critical thinking, always open to new information and perspectives.”

I have one more question. You write that science is an important building block in the evaluation of "facts". How do you assess the objectivity of today's science itself, given the increasing funding of studies, but above all of scientific institutes, by private sponsors, i.e. companies?

“The issue of objectivity in science, especially in the face of increasing funding from private sponsors and companies, is extremely relevant and controversial. Funding from private companies can have both positive and negative effects on science. Here is a differentiated view:

### 1. Advantages of private financing

– Promotion of innovationPrivate companies often invest in research areas that promise direct applications and commercial benefits. This can drive innovation in areas such as technology, medicine and environmental technologies and accelerate social progress.

– Expansion of research resourcesAdditional funding means that more projects can be carried out and research can be supported that might not be funded by public money. This can lead to new insights and breakthroughs.

– Partnerships and knowledge transferCooperation between companies and universities can promote the exchange of knowledge and technologies, which in turn can increase the practical relevance of scientific research.

### 2. Challenges and risks for objectivity

– Conflicts of interestOne of the biggest risks of private funding is the danger of conflicts of interest. Companies that fund research projects may have a strong interest in ensuring that the results meet their commercial objectives. This can lead to a distortion of the research results, whether by consciously or unconsciously influencing the research methods, the interpretation of the data or the publication of the results.

– Bias and selective publicationThere are cases in which studies that do not deliver the desired results are not published in the first place (so-called publication bias). There is also a risk that study results are presented in a way that favors the interests of the sponsors, even if this compromises scientific integrity.

– Dependency and power relationsScientists and institutes that rely heavily on private funding could lose their independence and come under pressure to steer research in a direction that meets the expectations of funders. In the long term, this could limit the diversity of research topics and jeopardize the objectivity of science.

– Transparency and accountabilityAnother problem is the lack of transparency. If research results from privately funded studies are not disclosed or methods are not fully described, it becomes difficult to assess the quality and independence of the research.

### 3. Measures to ensure objectivity

– Strict rules and guidelinesMany scientific institutions and journals have now introduced strict guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest. These include the disclosure of funding and potential conflicts of interest, peer review processes and ethical committees that monitor research.

– Public funding and promotion of independent researchBalanced public funding is important to ensure that research is not only focused on commercial interests. This promotes basic research and topics that may be less profitable but are important to society.

– Research integrity and ethicsTraining and sensitizing scientists to ethical issues and the importance of research integrity is crucial. Scientists must be able to work independently and be committed to scientific standards, even if this means acting against the interests of sponsors.

### Conclusion:

The objectivity of today’s science is not lost per se, but it is under increasing pressure from private funding. While this funding can foster innovation, it also brings risks to the independence and integrity of research. It is therefore crucial that strict ethical standards, transparency and balanced funding models are maintained and further developed to protect the objectivity of science. Scientific discourse and scrutiny by the scientific community play an important role in identifying and correcting bias.”

My question with a request for an honest answer: in the end, high standards could lead to the institutes being bled dry financially. Since these standards can only be reviewed by the scientific community itself or by politicians, they cannot be objective in themselves: Can a fundamental objectivity of science and its findings be maintained in this way at all?

“This is a very important and difficult question that reaches deep into the structure of modern science and its relationship to financial and political powers. To be honest, maintaining the fundamental objectivity of science in an environment where financial and political interests play an increasingly important role is a huge challenge. Here is an honest assessment:

### 1. Tension between financing and objectivity

Science is in a constant state of tension between the need to be financially viable and the requirement to conduct objective and independent research. High ethical and methodological standards are essential to ensure the integrity of research. At the same time, however, these standards can severely limit an institute’s ability to hold its own in a highly competitive funding environment.

### 2. Self-regulation and conflicts of interest

Self-regulation within the scientific community is problematic because it can lead to standards being adjusted according to institutional or financial constraints. If scientific institutions are forced to make compromises in order to secure their financial base, there is a risk that the objectivity and independence of research will suffer. In addition, science could be influenced in its self-regulation by the same conflicts of interest that it should be monitoring.

### 3. Political influence and power structures

Political influence on science, whether through public funding or legal regulations, can also jeopardize objectivity. Political interests can lead to certain research directions being favored or disfavored, depending on the respective political agendas. This can be particularly problematic when political decisions steer science in directions that do not primarily serve scientific progress, but rather certain ideological or economic interests.

### 4. Is fundamental objectivity still possible?

In practice, absolute objectivity can be difficult to achieve in such a system. Scientists, institutions and even policy makers are all part of a network of interests that influence their work and decisions. The danger is that science increasingly becomes an instrument that is more focused on the needs of funders and political actors than on the unbiased search for truth.

### 5. Ways to maintain objectivity

Despite these challenges, there are mechanisms that can help to maintain objectivity as far as possible:

– Transparency and disclosureDisclosure of funding sources, methods and potential conflicts of interest can at least provide the opportunity to identify and critically scrutinize distortions.

– Strengthening independent research fundingIncreased public funding and the promotion of independent research institutes could help to free science from commercial and political constraints.

– Peer review and replication studiesA robust system of peer review and replication studies can help to ensure the quality and objectivity of scientific research by reviewing results from different perspectives and under different conditions.

– Scientific discourse and pluralityThe promotion of an open and diverse scientific discourse, in which different opinions and approaches are heard, can help to balance biases and get closer to the scientific truth.

### Conclusion:

The fundamental objectivity of science is not guaranteed under current conditions, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Scientific research is under considerable pressure from financial and political interests, which can jeopardize objectivity. Nevertheless, there are ways and means to protect this objectivity as much as possible, although this remains a constant challenge in practice. It requires a high level of awareness, ethical commitment and a willingness to resist outside influences in order to maintain scientific integrity.”

Disclosure of funding sources already exists, so the problem becomes apparent. Independent research funding would only be possible through the state, and here too, the formulation of funding requirements can lead to subjective, politically motivated prioritization. The peer review system, in turn, is also subject to the basis of funding, as is scientific discourse. Hence my question again.

“You’re right, the mechanisms I mentioned earlier-such as transparency, peer review and independent research funding-are not immune to the same influences they seek to protect. Given these challenges, the question of the fundamental possibility of maintaining objectivity in science becomes even more pressing.

### The core of the question: Is fundamental objectivity still possible at all?

If we take into account the fact that both the funding and the institutional structures of science are strongly influenced by economic, political and social factors, one might conclude that a fully objective science may remain an idealistic goal – a kind of asymptotic ideal that we can approach, but which is never fully achievable in practice.

### Two possible answers:

1. Pragmatic realism:

– Objectivity as a goal, not as a state: One way to answer the question is to recognize that absolute objectivity may be unattainable, but should still serve as a normative goal. This means that scientists and institutions should continually strive to minimize bias and influence, even if they know they can never completely eliminate it. This requires constant vigilance, ethical awareness and an ongoing dialog about the limits and possibilities of scientific practice.

– Objectivity through plurality: Another approach might be to view objectivity not as a single, universal truth, but as the product of a pluralistic process in which many different voices, perspectives and methods come together. By integrating diversity and critical discourse, science might be able to achieve a kind of “intersubjective” objectivity that, while not absolute, is nevertheless robust.

2. Radical skepticism:

– Objectivity as an illusion: A more radical response would be to say that the idea of a completely objective science is perhaps an illusion. If we accept that all scientific processes and findings are in some way shaped by financial, political or cultural influences, one could argue that science cannot be objective, but is always anchored in a network of power relations.

– Postmodern perspective: From a postmodern perspective, one could argue that all scientific “truths” are constructions that serve certain interests, and that the notion of a neutral, objective science is a power strategy that favors certain narratives and actors.

### Conclusion:

If we look realistically at today’s scientific landscape, we must recognize that the fundamental objectivity of science is always under threat and may never be fully achieved. However, it is important that the scientific community continues to strive for this ideal and develop mechanisms to promote transparency, ethical behavior and critical reflection.

The fact that objectivity can never be fully achieved does not mean that it is meaningless-rather, this very imperfection could be an incentive to constantly work to make science as independent and objective as possible, even if this is a never-ending process.”

Hope dies last?

“Yes, you could say that. “Hope dies last” sums up the situation well: Although we are aware of the challenges and imperfections, there is still hope and a desire to make science as objective and independent as possible.

This attitude reflects the human ability to carry on and strive for improvement even in the face of difficult circumstances. It is an expression of faith in progress and in the possibility of achieving a better understanding of the world despite all adversity.

Hope can serve as a driving force that motivates us to continue fighting for integrity and objectivity in science, even when we know that perfection may be unattainable.”

Thank you!

“You’re welcome! If you have any further questions or would like to talk about another topic, I’m always available. Thank you also for the exciting discussion!”