Re: How long must we wait?

David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:09:57 GMT

I was interested to read Steve Clark's piece on Baconian science,
and would like to contribute something.

SC: "So, the way that science is to be done, according to Bacon,
is for a completely rational observer to record observational
data in some purely objective manner, totally free from all
prejudices and having no prior preference concerning what theory
should be correct. Data collected in such an objective manner
are then organized by the logical process of induction, again
without the influence of any presuppositions. From this, correct
generalizations will emerge out of the organized data."

This seems to me to be a fair summary of the Baconian emphasis.

SC: "This view of science is seriously inadequate for three
reasons:
1. First, data are not simply collected as they come. This
would result in a collection of bits of information largely
unrelated and irrelevant to whatever is being studied. Even if
such data were collected, it still requires one to sort the
relevant from the irrelevant which requires some preconceived
notion about the topic of study. In reality, data collection is,
in fact, guided by an a priori hypothesis and data are not
collected in the absence of all presuppositions."

Agreed. Perhaps more should be said about the "preconceived
notion" referred to. Scientists bring presuppositions,
conceptual frameworks (paradigms) and hypotheses. It is helpful
if these are identified at the outset - as these "notions"
constrain the scientist, often unconsciously.

SC: "2. Second, data are not self-organizing. Rather, data are
categorized and organized according to an a priori theory."

Agreed. I would say this is a weakness in Baconian philosophy.
The emergence of patterns in the data is not theory-free.

SC: "3. Finally, the logical inductive step is impossible
because the theories and explanatory principles that arise from
science are the products of human insight and creativity and are
not simply the logical results of data. It takes imagination in
order to go from a body of data to a theoretical account of that
data."

This is a very important point. Scientists are creative people!
As discussed earlier, "trial and error" approaches to design may
eventually get you where you want to be, but what a tortuous
route! A scientist uses informed "search" methods and introduces
creativity which I do not believe any have successfully reduced
to a process of induction.

SC: "With this background, let us now look at the how
creationists view the scientific method."

On this point, I would like to commend Del Ratzsch's book "The
battle of Beginnings". He discusses Baconian emphases which are
found both within creationism and among evolutionists.

SC: "Simply stated, the classical creationist position holds that
the acceptance of uniformity in nature represents a philosophical
presupposition that is inherently anti-theistic."

My reading of the situation is that creationists do not have any
quarrel with "uniformity". Most will link "uniformity" with
God's providence, and regard the laws of nature as our
descriptions of the way God upholds his creation. The
creationist objection is to "uniformitarianism" - the insistence
that the present uniformity is the norm for all time. Gould
distinguishes "methodological uniformitarianism" from
"substantive uniformitarianism" - and this may be a helpful
distinction to make. The creationist objection is to the latter.

SC: "Furthermore, according to creationists, since the
uniformitarian view embodies a philosophical presupposition.
They claim that it is unscientific to hold such a presupposition
when doing science because this interjects an unacceptable
subjectivity into science. If this sounds suspiciously close to
the Baconian inductivist model of science, it is because
creationism defines science according to the Baconian view."

Some may do this. But a creationist who does not hold to the
Baconian philosophy might point out that with different
presuppositions, different patterns are recognised, and different
explanations are suggested - equally worthy of the name
"science".

Best wishes,

*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***