From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 12:55:07 EDT
My use of the common turn of phrase "went wrong" I
thought clearly in context did not have the normative
connotation of right and wrong, but was meant in the
sense of something malfunctioned, such that the plane
did not behave as either the designer or a normal user
of the plan would have expected. (As my longer reply
to George, I hope, made clear.)
--- "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> One ought not to use examples that use
> non-scientific or nonphysical
> terms such as the term "wrong." The latter has no
> scientific meaning. A
> better example is how one interprets data collected
> by purely physical
> devices. Say a click is heard in a counter, how does
> one infer that it
> is an electron rather than a photon. In such a case,
> the creator of the
> detector knows what makes it click and that may be
> an assumption based
> on some theoretical presupposition or interpretation
> but is goes without
> saying that that is the way we know or learn in
> science.
>
> Moorad
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of George Murphy
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: Dr. Blake Nelson
> Cc: ASA; glennmorton@entouch.net
> Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re:
> RFEP & ID)
>
> I've got to agree with Glenn here. There are no
> naked facts bereft of
> any
> theoretical presuppositions or interpretations.
>
> You say below, "If a plane crashes, *something*
> went wrong."
> Really? When
> planes struck the Twin Towers 2 years ago, Osama bin
> Laden didn't think
> that anything
> had "gone wrong." He thought that what had happened
> was profoundly
> right. Similarly
> for Japanese kamikaze pilots. & for that matter even
> calling those
> events "crashes" is
> misleading because it suggests that they (like most
> plane "crashes")
> were accidental
> rather than deliberate.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
> Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:
> >
> > What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.
> >
> > If a plane crashes, *something* went wrong. The
> crash
> > (the thing) speaks for itself that something went
> > wrong.
> >
> > What exactly went wrong is a different matter and
> > beside the point for the use of the phrase,
> because it
> > is generally used in liability contexts where
> someone
> > bears the risk of the failure, unless they can
> show
> > that *something else* was responsible.
> >
> > A little context is usually a good thing to avoid
> > confusion.
> >
> > --- Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > 9-28-03
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > > >Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> > > >
> > > >The law has a saying, "res ipsa loquitor", e.g.
> > > "the thing speaks for
> > > >itself".
> > >
> > > res - thing, object, being, matter, affair,
> event,
> > > fact, circumstance.
> > >
> > > You know, I have sat outside at night under the
> > > stars, in a library with
> > > lots of facts, and you know, I have never heard
> a
> > > fact speaking for itself.
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
> search
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
> --
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 12:55:34 EDT