SOME THOUGHTFUL WORDS (NOT MINE)
ON RESEARCH STRATEGY FOR THEORISTS
"I quote from one of the greatest theorists of the postwar era:
'The principal error I see in most theoretical work is that of imagining
that a theory is really a good model for...nature rather than being
merely a demonstration (of possibility) -- a 'don't worry' theory.
Theorists almost always become too fond of their own ideas... .
It is difficult to believe that one's cherished theory,
which really works rather nicely, may be completely false.
The basic trouble is that many quite different
theories can go some way to explaining the facts. If elegance and
simplicity are...dangerous guides, what constraints can be used as
a guide through the jungle of possible theories?...The only useful
constraints are contained in the physical evidence. Even this evidence
is not without its hazards, since experimental 'facts' are often
misleading or even plain wrong. It is thus not sufficient to have
rough acquaintence with the evidence, but rather a deep and critical
knowledge of many different types, since one never knows what type
of fact is likely to give the game away... .
'Theorists...should realize that it is extremely unlikely that they will
produce a useful theory just by having a bright idea distantly related
to what they imagine to be the facts.'"
"This is Francis Crick...WHAT MAD PURSUIT, 1988."
Scientific theories are not "truth," they are but theories. I think this
is key.
Any person, scientist or otherwise, is free at any time to step away
from the practice of science and into philosophy. There are some
persons, however, who do so frequently without telling their readers
they have done so! They look at the data and theories of science, all
collected and formulated under the "no gods" assumption, and
conclude "no gods." In so doing, they appear to be victims
of their own presuppositions.
Now I am of the opinion (philosophically) that if God set up the earth
and life, particularly human life, "ex-nihilo" and instantaneously, that he
left behind no residue. So perhaps no experiment/discovery can ever
find such residue. The "last Tuesdayism" explanation of Gosse is as
good as any!
Assume, however, that residue is found. What might it look like/be? I
confess I don't have a good answer. One "poor" answer is that it would
be some sort of scaffolding used in earth's construction -- something
clearly "artificial," such as the artifact shown at the beginning of
Space Oddessy 2001, or the alleged markings of Von Dainken's book.
What would we then propose (as scientists?). Simple. We would propose
some extra-terrestrial intelligent agent who performed the earth/life/human
creation. Not a god. My prediction is this: at some point SETI will
report alien contact. Or at least a high probability of alien contact. At that
point the theory-makiong will take off, with proposals that the aliens
so encountered were somehow responsible for some of the more
inexplicable earth events; perhaps the Cambrian "explosion." The degree
of success of these alternate theories will depend (1) on how many, if any,
other data points are covered by them and (2) by the general gullibility
of the human population 30 or 50 years from now, and (3) whether or not
the crusade Phil Johnson and others are pursuing is successful or not.
Burgy (Easy for ME to theorize about 30-50 years out!) <G>