"Someone does...maybe it is Einstin or Crick?"
That's interesting, because neither of the two quotes really contradict my
assertion. Einstein said it was incorrect to develop a theory using data
_ALONE_, and he is certainly correct. A theory is an extrapolation from
data, it is meant to explain data. But you still have to have data to begin
with, even Einstein. When he developed the theory of the photoelectric
effect, it was based on the data collected from numerous experiments. And
even relativity was based on mathematical data.
Einstein was also right when he said, "It is the theory which decides what
we can observe." What he meant, however, was that once you have a theory to
explain your data, you use the theory to make predictions to test the
theory. If the predictions are born out, that data not only verifies the
theory, but it also adds to the evidential foundation of the theory.
What David is implying, however, is that some planetary scientists, _in the
total absence of any data_, one day decided that the early atmosphere must
of have been composed of reducing gases, and so invented a "theory" that
said so. Yet as Einstein himself observed, this could not be a theory if it
has no evidence to support it. At best it is speculation; at worst a mere
guess. And David claims there is no valid evidence supporting it.
As far as Crick is concerned, he is overstating the problem as usual. I had
a chance to meet him in graduate school, at a reception being held in his
honor. (He even allowed his picture to be taken with me!) I asked him
about his comments in that book and he assured me that he really didn't mean
that facts or data are "unreliable" or "wrong" or "misleading" in the way
that laymen mean it; ie, untrustworthy. He meant it as science means it,
that facts or data are often obscure. He agreed with me that facts are
always true, but that the problem is we don't always fit them together in
the right way the first time. In other words, he was trying to say that it
was how we manipulate data that can be "unreliable" or "wrong" or
"misleading". Nonetheless, he told me how, had Watson not seen a critical
piece of data at the right time, he and Crick would never have been able to
develop their model of DNA before someone else.
So Crick in fact supports my claim that theories must be based on facts,
otherwise they are not theories. Therefore I stand by my assessment of
David's need to refresh himself on the basic concepts of the philosophy of
science.
Kevin L. O'Brien