I was surprised when Bill supplied the correct answer -- Nothing is missing because it is complete as I wrote it. Wayne and Stein gave the typical answer and Glenn came up with something original: commas.
Contrary to Glenn's statement that "this is a case where a conclusion can be drawn only if one limits the possible answers," the question "what is missing?" is really a leading question. The question leads one to assume that something is missing when there is nothing missing at all. It prejudices or biases any answer developed. The problem is not the data but the question. The proper question should be: "What do you see?" When we ask proper questions, we are able to push ahead with better understanding. This is science, is it not..to see what is there?
What is missing? Nothing. It is the wrong question and the only way to answer it is to bring the question into question. This encourages better thinking, better observation skills..something we can all use. We need to sharpen our skills at listening and observing and develop reasonable responses when people ask incorrect questions.
As Bill said: "To say that a 4, or commas, or anything else is missing is to assume that we can read the intentions of Allen, or that we can delimit for Allen his range of possibilities....Only if Allen tells us what the series is supposed to look like, will we be able to know what, if anything, is missing." When it comes to studying nature, can we apply our own range of possibilities or do we look for what God has defined for us?
Allen Roy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 26 2000 - 01:30:42 EST