At 04:09 PM 12/18/96 GMT, you wrote:
>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 ***
>
____________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________