From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 11:33:37 EDT
Jay Willingham wrote:
>
> Exactly.
>
> It is declaring as fact the hypothetical interpretation of daisy-chained
> facts that is the root of the problem.
>
> Gene interpretation is not so firm a fact as the existence of fossils and
> the Grand Canyon.
ALL scientific "facts" involve some theory. There are no strictly "raw data."
Even the simple statement that an object is at a certain position involves theories of
light propagation &c.
Our knowledge about the distant past of the earth or of the universe of course
also involves theories. The question is whether these are well-tested scientific
theories, untested speculations, or philosophical & religious presuppositions disguised
as scientific theories - or some combination thereof. The phrase "daisy chained facts"
seems to be used pejoratively above, but I would certainly prefer a concatenation of
well-tested theories & observations that concludes that the MWB was emitted ~14 x 10^9
years ago to a "simple" claim that anything we see is less than 10^4 years old because
that's what one interpretation of Genesis says.
But to the argument that scientific "facts" like the big bang or evolution don't
have to be accepted because they involve theories, the only necessary response is "So's
your old man." Claims that life didn't evolve or that the big bang didn't happen also
involve theory.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 11:47:11 EDT