"Facts"

[Steven_S_Prevette@rl.gov]

I have read with interest some of the discussion of the fact that there are
no facts.

I would like to suggest a few points:

"Facts" are highly dependent upon:
	operational definitions
	perceptions
	paradigms

The person who stated their phone number was a "fact" might want to consider
the operational definition of a phone number.  If a phone number is those
series of digits that I must punch into my phone to reach you, did you
remember to put the leading "1"?  What if I have to dial a "9" to get an
outside line?  This is a global email list.  Can someone in Russia phone
that number and reach you, or do they have to add more prefixes?  What if
the telephone company changed your area code between the time you wrote the
email and when it was posted on the DEN?  If I am dialing within your area
code, what are the digits I enter into the phone?

I think the DEN has made a good case for the "no true value" of a
measurement, such as in the discussion of the number of boats on the bay.

I should also point out that categorical data such as color (purple vs.
mauve) or race (how much percentage American Indian do you need to be to be
counted as an American Indian?) rarely have a "true value".  A person who is
color blind may not be able perceive the difference in colors on a traffic
light.

And of course, there was Bill Clinton's variations on what is a fact (what
is "is"?)

Many high temper discussions would probably be more controlled if we
realized that what one person accepts as a "fact" may not be what the next
person accepts.  It is worth including the operational definition and your
theory and supporting data behind the "fact" when discussing facts.

Steve Prevette
QA Engineer, ESH Radiological Compliance
Fluor Hanford, A Fluor Global Services Company
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer
steven_s_prevette@rl.gov
509-373-9371