>I was interested to read Steve Clark's piece on Baconian science,
>and would like to contribute something.
>
[...]
>SC: "This view of science is seriously inadequate for three
>reasons:
[...]
>
>SC: "2. Second, data are not self-organizing. Rather, data are
>categorized and organized according to an a priori theory."
>
DT:==
>Agreed. I would say this is a weakness in Baconian philosophy.
>The emergence of patterns in the data is not theory-free.
>
In the past I've found that I agree with Steve Clark on
most things and with David Tyler on many things as well,
so it's with great fear and trepidation that I disagree
with both of these luminaries at once :-). This is
especially true in the present case since I know so
little about the philosophy or history of science. If
someone were to call me a Baconian I wouldn't really
know if I were being insulted or flattered :).
Of course "...data are not self-organizing" but this
doesn't mean that data are not organized and that one
cannot notice this organization irrespective of any
theory [spoken like a true experimentalist :)]. Data
may be organized by underlying laws and physical mechanisms
regardless of whether those laws or mechanisms are known.
For example, people certainly noticed the organization
of data now "explained" by Newton's law before Newton
wrote down his law.
In another thread we are discussing whether complexity
increases during evolution. We can define what we mean
by complexity and then see whether or not it increases
even though there is no theory (yet:) that describes
this increase or lack thereof. Note also that we can
ask the question "does complexity increase during
evolution?" without invoking any particular theory
of evolution. This is the basic distinction between
fact and theory that I like to make. There are
observations and there are theories that attempt to
explain those observations.
Some time ago I began to give myself a challenge when
thinking about critical or controversial questions in
the debate on origins. Before being overly critical
of evolutionary biologists or origin of life researchers
I would first try to think of an analogous situation
in my own field, the idea being that I didn't want to
be critical of others if I'm doing the same thing
(an application of Romans 2:1). Another benefit to this
approach is that it helps me to understand the motivation
behind whatever the controversial practice might be.
Regarding the fact/theory business my analogy was plasticity.
After developing this some it turns out that this is a
really great analogy for practically every controversial
topic that comes up regarding evolution. The same word
(plasticity) is used to refer to the empirical observation
of a certain type of material behavior and to the theories
that try to explain that behavior. Further, there is a whole
grab-bag (smorgasbord) of physical mechanisms that can be
pulled out to "explain" qualitatively any observed behavior,
yet there is no workable theory of plasticity. Also (as
an analogy to micro/macro ev), some of the theories work
spectacularly well in simple types of loading situations
but fail miserably to account for complicated, realistic
situations.
If an anti-plasticity group ever organized itself I'm sure
they would rant and rave ;-) about the shell game of plasticity.
Every anti-plasticity book would also have quotes like the
following:
If you see finite strain plasticity calculations, and
even more so if they're cyclic or dynamic, and you have
an experiment and all the finite element points are on
the experimental curve, you've seen a fraud because it
just doesn't work out that way. There are too many
uncertainties. You can match certain functionals of the
solution in certain cases but it is very very difficult,
given the uncertainties in theory, the uncertainties in
measurement ...
-- Thomas J.R. Hughes, <Plasticity of Metals at Finite
Strain>, Proceedings of Research Workshop held at
Stanford University July 29 - June 1, 1981, p.719.
Yet, against all reason, common sense, mom and apple pie,
the wicked plasticians insist that plasticity is a fact.
In his memoirs (What do *You* Care What Other People Think
-- p.16) Richard Feynman recalls a question he asked his
father when very young:
"Say, Pop, I noticed something. When I pull the wagon,
the ball rolls to the back of the wagon. And when I'm
pulling it along and I suddenly stop, the ball rolls
to the front of the wagon. Why is that?"
Those who know something about physics should pause here
and consider how they would answer this question before
reading on.
[pausing .......... [:-(O) ......]
Had one of my daughters asked me this question I would almost
certainly have answered 'inertia'. And if they asked what
inertia was I would probably say its a property of matter.
But Feynman is using this to illustrate the fact that giving
a name to something is no explanation. It was some years
after getting a PhD in inertia that I came to understand
"Pop's" answer and I must say it came as somewhat of a
surprise to me. I can't quite remember when this dawned on
me, but the surprise of it I remember well. Anyway, Pop's
answer to little Richard :-) was:
"That, nobody knows. The general principle is that
things which are moving tend to keep on moving, and
things which are standing still tend to stand still,
unless you push them hard. This tendency is called
'inertia,' but nobody knows why it's true."
Feynman added "Now, that's a deep understanding. He
didn't just give me the name."
I hope non-scientists in the crowd will reflect on this
for awhile. Scientific "explanations" are really not
explanations in the usual sense of the word.
Now, to bring this back around to my original point, little
Feynman (and everyone else) can experience (observe) this
principle of inertia whether he knows the name of it or
not and indeed whether or not it even has a name. In reply
to DT's last sentence above (way way above:)
"The emergence of patterns in the data is not theory-free"
I would have to mount a strong protest. The patterns are
there whether we know their names or not ;-).
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |