Commentary: Evolution: theory not fact

[Jason Spaceman]

From the article:
----------------------------------------------------------
Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to
speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my
interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class.
Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so
widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.

My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.

Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.
I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what
it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without
any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as
a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a
proven fact, I get bothered.

This particular professor went on to state that those who don't
believe in evolution are wrong. He said that there are so many facts
proving it's truth that one would have to be ignorant not to believe
it. I found this to be deeply offensive. I am not ignorant simply
because I choose to believe one theory over another.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1.2695837#.TzF_d8g42Lc




J. Spaceman

[deadrat]

Jason Spaceman <jspa...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:

> Recently,áIáwasásittingáináaáclassáináwhichámyáprofessorábeganátoá
> speakáaboutáevolution.áAsáaábelieveráofáBiblicalácreationism,ámyá
> interestáisáoftenápiquedáwhenáevolutionáisábroughtáupáináaáclass.á
> Normally,áIádoánotámindáaádiscussionáofátheátheoryásinceáit'sásoá
> widelyáacceptedábyámyápeers.áHowever,áthisátime,áitáwasádifferent.á
> á
> MyáprofessorástartedátalkingáaboutátheáTheoryáofáEvolutionáasáifáitá
> wasáaáfact.áThisáisáaáproblem.áEvolutionáisánotáaáfact,áit'sáaátheory.á
> á
> Defined,áaátheoryáisá"anáunprovenáassumption."áLet'sátreatáitáasásuch.á
> Iáhaveánoáproblemálearningáaboutáevolutionáifáit'sápresentedáasáwhatá
> itáis:áunproven.áIádon'táevenámindálearningáaboutáevolutionáwithoutá
> anyámentionáofáintelligentádesignáorácreationism,áifáit'sápresentedáasá
> aátheory.áBut,áwhenáaáprofessorábeginsátoáspeakáofáitáasáthougháit'sáaá
> provenáfact,áIágetábothered.á
> á
> Thisáparticularáprofessoráwentáonátoástateáthatáthoseáwhoádon'tá
> believeáináevolutionáareáwrong.áHeásaidáthatáthereáareásoámanyáfactsá
> provingáit'sátrutháthatáoneáwouldáhaveátoábeáignorantánotátoábelieveá
> it.áIáfoundáthisátoábeádeeplyáoffensive.áIáamánotáignorantásimplyá
> becauseáIáchooseátoábelieveáoneátheoryáoveráanother.á

What a coincidence!

Recently,áIáwasásittingáináaáclassáináwhichámyáprofessorábeganátoá
speakáaboutáirrational numbers.áAsáaábelieveráin Pythagoras,ámyá
interestáisáoftenápiquedáwhenáthis setáisábroughtáupáináaáclass.á
Normally,áIádoánotámindáaádiscussionáof irrational numbers, sinceáthey are
so widelyáacceptedábyámyápeers.áHowever,áthisátime,áitáwasádifferent.á
á
Myáprofessorástartedátalkingáaboutáthe set of Irrational Numbersáasáifáitá
wasáaáfact.áThisáisáaáproblem.áIrrationals areánotáaáfact,átheir existence
is aátheory.á
á
Defined,áaátheoryáisá"anáunprovenáassumption."áLet'sátreatáitáasásuch.á
Iáhaveánoáproblemálearningáaboutáirrational numbers
ifáthey'reápresentedáasáwhat
they are:áunproven.áIádon'táevenámindálearningáaboutáirrationalsáwithoutá
anyámentionáofáimaginary numbers or dense sets,áifáit'sápresentedáasá
aátheory.áBut,áwhenáaáprofessorábeginsátoáspeakáofáitáasáthougháit'sáaá
provenáfact,áIágetábothered.á
á
Thisáparticularáprofessoráwentáonátoástateáthatáthoseáwhoádon'tá
believeáináirrational numbers
areáwrong.áHeásaidáthatáthereáareásoámanyáfactsá
provingáit'sátrutháthatáoneáwouldáhaveátoábeáignorantánotátoábelieveá
it.áIáfoundáthisátoábeádeeplyáoffensive.áIáamánotáignorantásimplyá
becauseáIáchooseátoábelieveáoneátheoryáoveráanother.á

[chris thompson]

On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
wrote:

> Read it athttp://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1...
>
> J. Spaceman

Many of the responses are from NC State students or graduates, and the
majority seem to be either outraged or disgusted.

Chris

[Richard Norman]

lifecycle of a typical organism that it transforms from state A to
state

You picked a strange metaphor since it was from the school of
Pythagoras that the first proof emerged that the square root of two
cannot be rational. It is said that Hippasus discovered the proof
that so disturbed Pythagoras that he had Hippasus drowned at sea. Of
course, that this story cannot be confirmed and is almost certainly
mythical does not detract from its beauty. No doubt you cannot swim
and hence hold to the old ideas.

[Bob Berger]

In article <E4C953FC-43EE-4A32-9866-406959A019E5%a...@b.com>, deadrat says...

You're being irrational, unimaginary, and dense.

[Kermit]

On Feb 7, 12:16ápm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net> wrote:
> > Recently,áIáwasásittingáináaáclassáináwhichámyáprofessorábeganáto
> > speakáaboutáevolution.áAsáaábelieveráofáBiblicalácreationism,ámy
> > interestáisáoftenápiquedáwhenáevolutionáisábroughtáupáináaáclass.
> > Normally,áIádoánotámindáaádiscussionáofátheátheoryásinceáit'sáso
> > widelyáacceptedábyámyápeers.áHowever,áthisátime,áitáwasádifferent.
> >
> > MyáprofessorástartedátalkingáaboutátheáTheoryáofáEvolutionáasáifáit
> > wasáaáfact.áThisáisáaáproblem.áEvolutionáisánotáaáfact,áit'sáaátheory.
> >
> > Defined,áaátheoryáisá"anáunprovenáassumption."áLet'sátreatáitáasásuch.
> > Iáhaveánoáproblemálearningáaboutáevolutionáifáit'sápresentedáasáwhat
> > itáis:áunproven.áIádon'táevenámindálearningáaboutáevolutionáwithout
> > anyámentionáofáintelligentádesignáorácreationism,áifáit'sápresentedáas
> > aátheory.áBut,áwhenáaáprofessorábeginsátoáspeakáofáitáasáthougháit'sáa
> > provenáfact,áIágetábothered.
> >
> > Thisáparticularáprofessoráwentáonátoástateáthatáthoseáwhoádon't
> > believeáináevolutionáareáwrong.áHeásaidáthatáthereáareásoámanyáfacts
> > provingáit'sátrutháthatáoneáwouldáhaveátoábeáignorantánotátoábelieve
> > it.áIáfoundáthisátoábeádeeplyáoffensive.áIáamánotáignorantásimply
> > becauseáIáchooseátoábelieveáoneátheoryáoveráanother.
>
> What a coincidence!
>
> Recently,áIáwasásittingáináaáclassáináwhichámyáprofessorábeganáto
> speakáaboutáirrational numbers.áAsáaábelieveráin Pythagoras,ámy
> interestáisáoftenápiquedáwhenáthis setáisábroughtáupáináaáclass.

> Normally,áIádoánotámindáaádiscussionáof irrational numbers, sinceáthey are
> so widelyáacceptedábyámyápeers.áHowever,áthisátime,áitáwasádifferent.
>

> Myáprofessorástartedátalkingáaboutáthe set of Irrational Numbersáasáifáit
> wasáaáfact.áThisáisáaáproblem.áIrrationals areánotáaáfact,átheir existence
> is aátheory.
>
> Defined,áaátheoryáisá"anáunprovenáassumption."áLet'sátreatáitáasásuch.

> Iáhaveánoáproblemálearningáaboutáirrational numbers
> ifáthey'reápresentedáasáwhat
> they are:áunproven.áIádon'táevenámindálearningáaboutáirrationalsáwithout

> anyámentionáofáimaginary numbers or dense sets,áifáit'sápresentedáas

> aátheory.áBut,áwhenáaáprofessorábeginsátoáspeakáofáitáasáthougháit'sáa
> provenáfact,áIágetábothered.
>
> Thisáparticularáprofessoráwentáonátoástateáthatáthoseáwhoádon't
> believeáináirrational numbers
> areáwrong.áHeásaidáthatáthereáareásoámanyáfacts
> provingáit'sátrutháthatáoneáwouldáhaveátoábeáignorantánotátoábelieve
> it.áIáfoundáthisátoábeádeeplyáoffensive.áIáamánotáignorantásimply
> becauseáIáchooseátoábelieveáoneátheoryáoveráanother.

And atoms. Don't get me started on atoms!

Your well-reasoned argument could have been on atoms, almost word for
word. These arrogant "scientists" should be called out whenever
possible. The bible doesn't say anything about atoms.

Kermit,
another student of a science class for non-college majors

[Rodjk #613]

How are you seeing responses? I don't see anything under the comments.

Rodjk #613

[deadrat]

Just as the true age of the earth became apparent to those who started out
believing in Bible myths. Cast Bishop Ussher as Pythagoras; William Buckland as
Hippasus. The dates don't really work, and as far as I know the Anglican Church
didn't drown heretics in Buckland's day, but you get the idea.

> It is said that Hippasus discovered the proof
> that so disturbed Pythagoras that he had Hippasus drowned at sea.

The proof is overwhelming in its simplicity and can be grasped by anyone who
understands junior high algebra. Another parallel, mutatis mutandis.

> Of
> course, that this story cannot be confirmed and is almost certainly
> mythical does not detract from its beauty. No doubt you cannot swim
> and hence hold to the old ideas.

The moral I take is that if you challenge religious authorities, their first
impulse is to kill you.

The metaphor isn't quite apt since it involves math and proof, which isn't
identical to science and evidence.

[deadrat]

Not to mention totally unconnected.

[deadrat]

Yes, atomic theory works even better since that's a science/evidence kind of
thing as opposed to math/proof. Not to mention the historical battles over
atomism. Up until, oh, say 1905.

[Richard Norman]

A compact analysis.

[Ron O]

On Feb 7, 1:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
wrote:

> Read it athttp://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1...
>
> J. Spaceman

So the boob doesn't know what a scientific theory is. What else is
new?

Ron Okimoto

[wiki trix]

To the author of spaceman's quotations...

> My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
> was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.

How do you define the word "fact"? In fact, there are no facts in
science. At least not in the strictest sense of known truths. Only
theories. The only certainty is that nothing is certain and the only
sort of thing in science that comes close to being a "fact" is a
repeatedly consistent observation or measurement, and even that must
always remain suspect. A theory is never a fact. Colloquially
speaking, however, you may hear scientists casually refer to
scientific results as "facts". But that is really just sloppy talk.
Certainly, the theory of evolution is a theory and not a fact. But
hardly anyone other than the likes of you really gives a crap's ass
about that sort of thing. It really does not matter much.

> Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.

Where did you get that definition from? It is not exactly a standard
definition. An assumption is more like a hypothesis, or a conjecture
or a hunch, not exactly what is meant by the word "theory". And be
careful of that word "unproven". Theories are never proven. You seem
to be confusing science with mathematics or logic.

[A.Carlson]

According to the student directory for North Carolina State University
the author is a sophomore majoring in "English, Teacher Education
Option". The article appears in the student newspaper which lists
her as both a "staff columnist" and the "Viewpoint Deputy Editor".

Although, as an English major one would have hoped that she wouldn't
have fallen for or advocated such an obviously bad semantic argument
(the genetic fallacy?) , the existence of such an article perhaps
makes a bit more sense considering:

- It is a daily student newspaper in the deep south. From the
paper's own website:

"As a public forum for student expression, the students
determine the content of the publication without prior review."

- She is just a Sophomore.
- She is an English major, not a Science major.
- It is an opinion piece only being sold as such.
- Opinion pages typically have far less stringent requirements anyway
and therefore should be read with this in mind.

That said, the article is still abysmal and, as others have noted, she
is at least taking some well deserved flack from fellow students. The
student newspaper being a daily and with her having responsibilities
to provide content perhaps she found it necessary to recycle an old
English assignment on persuasive argument.

[deadrat]

Just like my mind: closed and bounded.

[Kent]

Well stated. If only more people understood your point.

[chris thompson]

I clicked on Facebook comments.

Chris

[chris thompson]

I disagree.

There are facts in science. They're called "data".

"Three eggs in nest 271".
"21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
"Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
"The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
tissue".

By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and uninteresting. It
takes an overarching theory to make sense of them.

And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
someone else in some other place at some other time will generate a
different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even more fun
when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because then you can
gloat.

Chris

[Kent]

Not really. We have observations and the models deduced from them.
Read Kuhn on why observations are theory laden.

[Bob Berger]

In article <43658D4C-B43D-4020-B7CC-7797524C2045%a...@b.com>, deadrat says...

And speaking of your mind...

Does it belong to the set of all sets that are not subsets of themselves?

[AGWFacts]

Or both. A theory is "an unproven assumption?" Good grief. This
was written by a student at North Carolina State University,
published inthe University's on-line news paper.

> Chris


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[deadrat]

Some would say yes, since it's empty.

[chris thompson]

I will, as soon as you tell me what the theory is underlying the
observation (fact) "Three eggs in nest 271".

Chris

[DougC]

Jason Spaceman wrote:

> From the article:

> I choose to believe one theory over another.

Did it never occur to you that the two theories - evolution and God
(Allah/Zeus/Thor/Great Thunderbird) - can fit together very well. The
unseen diety has chosen to use evolution as His method.

Doug Chandler

[Jenny6833A]

On Feb 8, 12:09 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
>  Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > From the article:
> > I choose to believe one theory over another.
>

> Did it never occur to you ...

Don't address comments to Jason. He posts articles of interest, but
does not take a position.

> ... that the two theories - evolution and God

> (Allah/Zeus/Thor/Great Thunderbird) - can fit together very well.

That they 'can' doesn't mean that they do.

> The
> unseen diety has chosen to use evolution as His method.

Got evidence?

>
> Doug Chandler

:-)

Jenny

[DougC]

Jenny6833A wrote:

> > > From the article:
> > > I choose to believe one theory over another.
>
> > Did it never occur to you ...
>
> Don't address comments to Jason.  He posts articles of interest, but
> does not take a position.

I know that. I was writing to the dunce who said, "I choose to
believe..."

> That they 'can' doesn't mean that they do.

> > The
> > unseen diety has chosen to use evolution as His method.

> Got evidence?

This whole discussion is about the lack of evidence. Wake up.


Doug Chandler

[Garamond Lethe]

1) How did the observer classify broken eggs?
2) How did the observer classify eggs that appear to be unhatched from
the previous season?
3) How did the observer classify eggs that appear to be from a different
species?
4) If the eggs were in what could best be described as a "partial" or
"incomplete" nest, how are they counted?

And on, and on, and on.

If the same person is doing the counting and writing the paper, these
problems don't come up (well, if the paper is written promptly after the
counting). If the person writing the paper is using 50 year old data
from a long-term ecological study, and the people doing the counting have
long since retired, this starts to become an issue.

Another example: At site A of field station Beta, the morning
temperature was 54.5F at 10a.

That's a fact, right? If I added the date of June 1st, 1950 to that
observation, it's still a fact but you need theory to make sense of it.
Which thermometer was used? Where was it placed? What was the accuracy
and the precision of this model of thermometer, and how widely did both
vary? Did the thermometer become less accurate over time? How carefully
do we think the readings were made?

I have a dim memory of reading an article about this, I think at
OikosBlog. If you're interested I can try digging it up for you.

[J. J. Lodder]

True, but empty of content, even of theological content,

Jan

[wiki trix]

My point was that there are no scientific facts in the strictest sense
of known truths. I pointed out that the only things in science that
come close to being a "fact" is a "repeatedly consistent observation
or measurement but even that must always remain suspect”. There may be
calibration errors, human biases, linguistic ambiguities, systematic
errors, statistical sampling errors, improper assumptions regarding
proxy measurements, invalid interpretive models, and outright lies.
Data are not facts in the strict sense, which is the sense that many
laymen interpret as the word "fact". And in science, data themselves
are useless without interpretation, which implies non-factual
inferences must be made. I don't want to split hairs here, call data
facts if you wish. My point is that people outside of science have a
very different understanding of the word "fact", which causes no end
of problems for public understanding of what happens in science. And
that is a societal problem that should be addressed in public
education, I would say.

> By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and uninteresting. It
> takes an overarching theory to make sense of them.

Yes.

> And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
> someone else in some other place at some other time will generate a
> different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even more fun
> when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because then you can
> gloat.

True.

[wiki trix]

Depends on your Theory of Egg. Does your ToE define a double yolk in a
single shell as one egg or two eggs?

[TomS]

"On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:09:12 -0800 (PST), in article
<183d0b90-4b7e-40cf...@p12g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, DougC
stated..."

That way of speaking seems to put God the Creator in the same status
as explanatory factors.

Myself, I don't see how evolutionary biology presents any more
problems for belief in creation than does reproductive biology.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[AGWFacts]

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> > wrote:
> > > From the article:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to
> > > speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my
> > > interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class.
> > > Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so
> > > widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.
> > >

> > > My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
> > > was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.
> > >

> > > Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.

> > > I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what
> > > it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without
> > > any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as
> > > a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a
> > > proven fact, I get bothered.
> > >
> > > This particular professor went on to state that those who don't
> > > believe in evolution are wrong. He said that there are so many facts
> > > proving it's truth that one would have to be ignorant not to believe
> > > it. I found this to be deeply offensive. I am not ignorant simply

> > > because I choose to believe one theory over another.
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Read it at

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1.2695837#.TzF_d8g42Lc

> > Many of the responses are from NC State students or graduates, and the
> > majority seem to be either outraged or disgusted.

The comments are awesome, and they give me hope that America has a
future that is not completely "third world"-ish.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:05:26 -0700, in article
<n8e5j75bmu6puifs8...@4ax.com>, AGWFacts stated..."

>
>>On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson
>><chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...snip...]

>http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1.2695837#.TzF_d8g42Lc
>
>> > Many of the responses are from NC State students or graduates, and the
>> > majority seem to be either outraged or disgusted.
>
>The comments are awesome, and they give me hope that America has a
>future that is not completely "third world"-ish.
>
>

I just took a look, and there were 277 comments, quite a few of which
were good.

[John S. Wilkins]

This doesn't depend upon theory, but upon careful observation, and tht
can be taught in the absence of theory. Likewise, it is not theoretical
to identify and count eggs, unless your notion of theory is so vapid as
to include any biological or cultural dispositions (in which case it
isn't at all enlightening about scientific theories, and the motivation
for the theory-dependence thesis is lost.

>
> If the same person is doing the counting and writing the paper, these
> problems don't come up (well, if the paper is written promptly after the
> counting). If the person writing the paper is using 50 year old data
> from a long-term ecological study, and the people doing the counting have
> long since retired, this starts to become an issue.
>
> Another example: At site A of field station Beta, the morning
> temperature was 54.5F at 10a.
>
> That's a fact, right? If I added the date of June 1st, 1950 to that
> observation, it's still a fact but you need theory to make sense of it.
> Which thermometer was used? Where was it placed? What was the accuracy
> and the precision of this model of thermometer, and how widely did both
> vary? Did the thermometer become less accurate over time? How carefully
> do we think the readings were made?

Again, this is instrumental rather than theoretical.

>
> I have a dim memory of reading an article about this, I think at
> OikosBlog. If you're interested I can try digging it up for you.
>
>
>
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Three eggs in nest 271".
> >> > "21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
> >> > "Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
> >> > "The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
> >> > tissue".
> >>
> >> > By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and uninteresting.
> >> > It takes an overarching theory to make sense of them.
> >>
> >> > And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
> >> > someone else in some other place at some other time will generate a
> >> > different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even more fun
> >> > when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because then you can
> >> > gloat.
> >>
> >> > Chris

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[wiki trix]

On Feb 9, 2:02 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

Many observations are theory-laden and most observations are
interpreted through prior understanding of currently held theories. It
seems pointless to discuss how much or how little theory comes into
play when recording egg counts. I would say that a farmer would count
eggs based on the number of intact eggs he sees, but an embryologist
might be more interested in the total number of fertilized eggs, or
perhaps the number of yolks, or some such detail. It really doesn't
matter so much though. The bigger issue as it relates to this thread
is whether the number of eggs is always a fact (known truth) or not
(biased estimate). The point is that science does not traffic in facts
in that strict sense. The scientific method tolerates something less
than stringent facts, and gets along fairly well with simply dealing
with measurements. As I have said, measurements are the only thing in
science that comes close to facts, and colloquially speaking, they are
"facts". The only reason I am stressing on this hair splitting is that
it seems to be a major issue in the understanding of how science works
with many of the public. And that makes it is important to science.

[John S. Wilkins]

wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Many observations are theory-laden and most observations are
> interpreted through prior understanding of currently held theories.

Nobody can deny this. But "many" and even "most" is not "all". Unless
the laws of logic changed since my first year logic course...

[Frank J]

On Feb 7, 3:27 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to
> > speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my
> > interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class.
> > Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so
> > widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.
>

> > My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
> > was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.
>

> > Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.

> > I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what
> > it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without
> > any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as
> > a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a
> > proven fact, I get bothered.
>
> > This particular professor went on to state that those who don't
> > believe in evolution are wrong. He said that there are so many facts
> > proving it's truth that one would have to be ignorant not to believe
> > it. I found this to be deeply offensive. I am not ignorant simply
> > because I choose to believe one theory over another.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> > Read it athttp://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1...
>
> > J. Spaceman

>
> Many of the responses are from NC State students or graduates, and the
> majority seem to be either outraged or disgusted.

Why? The writer is either thorougly misled or pulling their chains
(Poe's Law). I would just calmly say: "The first time you define
theory like that, God will probably forgive you, but if you do it a
second time you will have broken His commandment about bearing false
witness."



>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Frank J]

On Feb 8, 3:15 am, Jenny6833A <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:09 am, DougC <priga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >  Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > > From the article:
> > > I choose to believe one theory over another.
>
> > Did it never occur to you ...
>
> Don't address comments to Jason.  He posts articles of interest, but
> does not take a position.

From the few times he did offer an opinion, he only posts links to
commentary that he disagrees with.

[Frank J]

On Feb 8, 1:19 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:05:26 -0700, in article

> <n8e5j75bmu6puifs8o29imdei1804rd...@4ax.com>, AGWFacts stated..."

>
>
>
> >>On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 12:27:02 -0800 (PST), chris thompson

> >><chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...snip...]
> >http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1...

>
> >> > Many of the responses are from NC State students or graduates, and the
> >> > majority seem to be either outraged or disgusted.
>
> >The comments are awesome, and they give me hope that America has a
> >future that is not completely "third world"-ish.
>
> I just took a look, and there were 277 comments, quite a few of which
> were good.

I did a quick scan of the most recent ones, and if there were any good
ones before that, the conversation degenerated afterwards.

Did anyone ask the writer or any sympathetic commenters the "what
happened when" questions, to determine which of the mutually-
contradictory creationist/ID positions they think is the best
"theory"?

[Garamond Lethe]

It can?

> Likewise, it is not theoretical
> to identify and count eggs, unless your notion of theory is so vapid as
> to include any biological or cultural dispositions (in which case it
> isn't at all enlightening about scientific theories, and the motivation
> for the theory-dependence thesis is lost.
>>
>> If the same person is doing the counting and writing the paper, these
>> problems don't come up (well, if the paper is written promptly after
>> the counting). If the person writing the paper is using 50 year old
>> data from a long-term ecological study, and the people doing the
>> counting have long since retired, this starts to become an issue.
>>
>> Another example: At site A of field station Beta, the morning
>> temperature was 54.5F at 10a.
>>
>> That's a fact, right? If I added the date of June 1st, 1950 to that
>> observation, it's still a fact but you need theory to make sense of it.
>> Which thermometer was used? Where was it placed? What was the
>> accuracy and the precision of this model of thermometer, and how widely
>> did both vary? Did the thermometer become less accurate over time?
>> How carefully do we think the readings were made?
>
> Again, this is instrumental rather than theoretical.

Who are you and what have you done with the real John Wilkins?

What does "instrumental" refer to if not a body of scientific theory (of
greater or lesser vapidity) applied to the problem of measuring some
aspect of the world?

[R. Dean]

Is it not a devaluation the scientific process to define evolution
as a fact? Without the capability to observe 4 billion years of earth's
history, scientist can only claim to be reading the history of the
past from its results. As such, the evidence from the past is
interpretated within the framework of an overarching paradigm.

[deadrat]

"R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip/>

> Is it not a devaluation the scientific process to define evolution
> as a fact? Without the capability to observe 4 billion years of earth's
> history, scientist can only claim to be reading the history of the
> past from its results. As such, the evidence from the past is
> interpretated within the framework of an overarching paradigm.

Is it not a devaluation of the scientific process to define quantum
electrodynamics as a fact? Without the capability to observe every
electron-photon interaction over the 14 billion years of the universe's
history, scientist(s) can only claim to be calculating the history of the
past (so much easier than the history of the future) from its results. As
such the evidence from the past is interpretated (so much more accurate
than when evidence is interpreted) within the framework of an overarching
paradigm (so much more comprehensive than those underarching paradigms).

[Arkalen]

Evidence from *everything* in science is interpreted within the
framework of an overarching paradigm. Obviously it's most obviously seen
with things like the past, the extremely small, the extremely far, which
rely on extremely complex instruments and extremely pointed theoretical
frameworks to make sense of. But really it's all levels of uncertainty -
even the most straightforward observations rely on our senses, which we
know are fallible. We can compensate for that, but all it does is reduce
the uncertainty, not eliminate it.

Ultimately whether we talk about "facts" or even "proof" in science is a
question of language use. They're words we use in every day life and
often apply to concepts that are a lot less certain than scientific
concepts so in everyday language I see no reason not to use them for
science too. When arguing philosophy of science it can be more iffy, and
when explaining to people that science is inherently uncertain (like
everything), it's just a lot LESS uncertain than most things, it becomes
a regular minefield.

But overall I'd say that no, saying evolution is a fact doesn't devalue
the scientific process at all. Quite the opposite, it's the best way to
do justice to the scientific process that resulted in the theory of
evolution and verified it to the point it's one of the most solid
scientific "facts" we have.

>>
>>>
>>> "Three eggs in nest 271".
>>> "21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
>>> "Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
>>> "The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
>>> tissue".
>>>
>>> By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and uninteresting. It
>>> takes an overarching theory to make sense of them.
>>>
>>> And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
>>> someone else in some other place at some other time will generate a
>>> different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even more fun
>>> when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because then you can
>>> gloat.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

[John S. Wilkins]

If you can't count eggs without a theory, good luck shopping. For that
matter, if you can't observe eggs in the wild, you are orders of
magnitude stupider than your forebears, which is unlikely. And such
practices can be taught by ostension and imitation, atheoretically.

David Hull once said that the use of the term "spinneret" is
theoretical, which may be (I doubt it - names of objects are in
themselves theoretical) but any six year old child (being the standin
for an atheoretical observer) can point to where the silk is coming out
of a spider when they observe it happening (I speak from experience).

>
> > Likewise, it is not theoretical
> > to identify and count eggs, unless your notion of theory is so vapid as
> > to include any biological or cultural dispositions (in which case it
> > isn't at all enlightening about scientific theories, and the motivation
> > for the theory-dependence thesis is lost.
> >>
> >> If the same person is doing the counting and writing the paper, these
> >> problems don't come up (well, if the paper is written promptly after
> >> the counting). If the person writing the paper is using 50 year old
> >> data from a long-term ecological study, and the people doing the
> >> counting have long since retired, this starts to become an issue.
> >>
> >> Another example: At site A of field station Beta, the morning
> >> temperature was 54.5F at 10a.
> >>
> >> That's a fact, right? If I added the date of June 1st, 1950 to that
> >> observation, it's still a fact but you need theory to make sense of it.
> >> Which thermometer was used? Where was it placed? What was the
> >> accuracy and the precision of this model of thermometer, and how widely
> >> did both vary? Did the thermometer become less accurate over time?
> >> How carefully do we think the readings were made?
> >
> > Again, this is instrumental rather than theoretical.
>
> Who are you and what have you done with the real John Wilkins?
>
> What does "instrumental" refer to if not a body of scientific theory (of
> greater or lesser vapidity) applied to the problem of measuring some
> aspect of the world?

It refers to practices. Some practices are indeed theoretical (such as
interpreting a cloud chamber photograph) but many, possibly most, are
not. An instrumental practice of a discipline (including, for example,
lay birdwatching) can very well be clear of theory (for that discipline
- it is gerrymandering things to say "but it relies on theories of
optics and psychology", which is a total non sequitur with respect to
bird watching per se).

>
> >>
> >> I have a dim memory of reading an article about this, I think at
> >> OikosBlog. If you're interested I can try digging it up for you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Three eggs in nest 271".
> >> >> > "21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
> >> >> > "Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
> >> >> > "The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
> >> >> > tissue".
> >> >>
> >> >> > By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and
> >> >> > uninteresting. It takes an overarching theory to make sense of
> >> >> > them.
> >> >>
> >> >> > And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
> >> >> > someone else in some other place at some other time will generate
> >> >> > a different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even
> >> >> > more fun when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because
> >> >> > then you can gloat.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Chris

[Garamond Lethe]

So here are two models:

1) Simple counting is theoretical --- there's a huge leap of abstraction
that has to occur for a child to understand that number is an
abstraction. As theories go I'm happy to put this in the vapid class,
but I do gain the advantage of putting abstract thought onto a single
continuum.

2) Simple counting is not theoretical --- it's a different class of
thinking altogether. Among the diagnostics used to make this
classification are the fact that counting may be taught be imitation.
The advantage here is that we can cut down on the number of things we
have to put into the theory bin (which is a good thing).

My problem with #2 is that I don't see anything qualitatively different
between learning to count and apply graph theory to processor power
scheduling problems. A difference of degree --- yes, certainly. But
kind? They're both abstract thought that can be used as inputs for
higher abstraction, and they are both subject to verification by an
external reality.

[The above excludes simple recognition --- there's not abstract thought
there.]

> David Hull once said that the use of the term "spinneret" is
> theoretical, which may be (I doubt it - names of objects are in
> themselves theoretical) but any six year old child (being the standin
> for an atheoretical observer) can point to where the silk is coming out
> of a spider when they observe it happening (I speak from experience).

I think that's a marvelously self-defeating anecdote. How do you get the
child to point to where the silk is coming out? "Mary, can you point to
where the silk is coming out of the spider?" That requires abstraction
for "Mary", "point", "silk", "out" and "spider" and, as you say, names of
objects are theoretical.

Now I'm confused. "Eggs" is a name as well, thus theoretical, and I
thought you wanted to make them non- or pre-theoretical.

I'm not making a gerrymandering argument but rather one from
abstraction. The two-dimensional bluejay you see in your birdwatching
book is not the three-dimensional bluejay you see dive-bombing your cat.
I think it's simpler to describe as theoretical the thinking that allows
you to put both into the same abstract class; so I guess I'm ultimately
making an argument from convenience.

By this reasoning using a tape measure requires theory.

It's been a while since I asked you for a reading recommendation. So,
which M should I FR?

[Mark Isaak]

[resposting; the last one got lost in the recent blackout]

> can be taught in the absence of theory. Likewise, it is not theoretical

> to identify and count eggs, unless your notion of theory is so vapid as
> to include any biological or cultural dispositions (in which case it
> isn't at all enlightening about scientific theories, and the motivation
> for the theory-dependence thesis is lost.

At one time in my life, I had the task of counting the number of
individuals of different psocid species in a number of beating samples.
I did not then know different psocid species by name, so I gave them
tentative names, and when I encountered a particular and unusual
species, I simply labeled it "psocid R", to be identified later. When I
got around to identifying it, I realized that it was not a psocid at
all, but was in an entirely different order. I don't think I would have
made that mistake if I had not had psocids on my mind.

I also discovered, when I got a copy of _North American Psocoptera_,
that the species I had been calling "psocid A" was actually two
different species, and I had to go through the samples a second time and
sort them out.

So counting psocids is not just straightforward observation, but
involves some theory, namely theory of distinguishing the bounds of just
what it is I am counting. I might add that the theory involved in
gathering the samples in the first place was far from trivial. Perhaps
counting eggs is easier, but I suspect the same principles apply.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Ernest Major]

In message <Wk0Zq.72828$7N1....@newsfe24.ams2>, R. Dean <"R.
Dean"@gmail.com> writes

No, it is not a devaluation of the scientific process to infer (not
define) that evolution is a fact. Inference (or if you prefer,
induction) is at the heart of the scientific process.

>>
>>>
>>> "Three eggs in nest 271".
>>> "21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
>>> "Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
>>> "The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
>>> tissue".
>>>
>>> By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and uninteresting. It
>>> takes an overarching theory to make sense of them.
>>>
>>> And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time. Likely,
>>> someone else in some other place at some other time will generate a
>>> different set of facts. That's why science is fun. It's even more fun
>>> when someone gets the same set of facts you did, because then you can
>>> gloat.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <862dnXxmW4P...@giganews.com>, Garamond Lethe
<cartogr...@gmail.com> writes

My opinion is that observations and inferences are not distinct
categories. There is a continuum from the most direct and least theory
laden observations, to the most indirect and theory laden observation.
(And many observations are more theory laden than is generally realised
- a temperature reading, mentioned upthread, is my standard example of
how observations are theory laden.) The continuum may be more than
one-dimensional.

Paralleling birdwatching (and Mark Isaak's psocid example), I do some
plant recording. Among that plants that are sufficiently rare that I am
filling in some of the gaps in its recorded distribution is the
maidenhair spleenwort. Most British botanists classify this as a single
species, Asplenium trichomanes. However there are several cytotypes, and
more subspecies, and I think that this is a species complex, rather than
a single species. Consequently I record this as Asplenium trichomanes
agg. (I don't have the ability to distinguish the different forms, but
on distributional and habitat grounds what I am seeing is probably not
Asplenium trichomanes s.s., but another species, for which I have been
unable to discover the correct name.)

You'll note the theory laden nature of that identification.

>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> I have a dim memory of reading an article about this, I think at
>>> >> OikosBlog. If you're interested I can try digging it up for you.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > Chris
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > "Three eggs in nest 271".
>>> >> >> > "21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
>>> >> >> > "Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
>>> >> >> > "The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
>>> >> >> > tissue".
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and
>>> >> >> > uninteresting. It takes an overarching theory to make sense of
>>> >> >> > them.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time.
>>> >> >> > Likely,
>>> >> >> > someone else in some other place at some other time will
>>> >> >> > generate a different set of facts. That's why science is fun.
>>> >> >> > It's even more fun when someone gets the same set of facts you
>>> >> >> > did, because then you can gloat.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Chris
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Richard Norman]

Ernest Major's notion of a continuum of data collection is the key
point. Even a question as simple as "did the subject survive the
treatment" is iffy -- just ask Schrodinger's cat. Mark Isaac gave
another example where "simple counting" was far from simple. All
counting requires a decision: "is this an instance of such and such?"

So we end up in the old discussion -- is all science value laden?

[John S. Wilkins]

Whether or not someone has a theory of number is irrelevant to their
instrumental use of numbers to count with. I think you are making a
category error here: the existence of a theory that accounts for or
explains some conceptual or behavioural feature is not the same thing as
the feature itself. One is explanans and the other explanandum.

>
>
> > David Hull once said that the use of the term "spinneret" is
> > theoretical, which may be (I doubt it - names of objects are in
> > themselves theoretical) but any six year old child (being the standin
> > for an atheoretical observer) can point to where the silk is coming out
> > of a spider when they observe it happening (I speak from experience).
>
> I think that's a marvelously self-defeating anecdote. How do you get the
> child to point to where the silk is coming out? "Mary, can you point to
> where the silk is coming out of the spider?" That requires abstraction
> for "Mary", "point", "silk", "out" and "spider" and, as you say, names of
> objects are theoretical.
>
> Now I'm confused. "Eggs" is a name as well, thus theoretical, and I
> thought you wanted to make them non- or pre-theoretical.

You seem to think that if there is no neutral observation language there
is theory, and vice versa. That is a marvellously untenable idea. I had
a name given me at birth - sure, my parents had to be able to track me
through persistent changes and all that, but if *that's* what you want
to call theory, then science is nodifferent from any human convention or
practice, and we might as well admit the creationists are right that
evolution has no higher standing than the literal reading of Genesis.

If everything is theory, then science is not special. I take a different
view: evolution gives us predispositions to be able to observe the
world. They are not some Protokolsätze or bliks, but they are not in any
sensible manner, theory. Theory is a more or less formaliseable set of
interpreted models that are mathematical in character. It is what
happens when observation is done carefully, and yes, through refined
practices (you have to be taught to observe for art, too, but it ain't
science or theory). Teaching children to see is in general a
pretheoretical activity, but not all observation is pre-theoretical, and
it's a continuum from naive to theoretical observation, not a dichotomy.

Eggs are what kids collect from bird nests when they can. Calcified
amniotic sacs are theoretical.

You learn to interpret flat pictures much the same way you learn
language - by imitation and reinforcement. You don't learn language by
learning Chomskyan deep grammar (or even surface grammar or even
classical grammar). Similarly you don't learn to see by learning the
theory of optics.

>
> By this reasoning using a tape measure requires theory.

By that definition of theory, taking a crap is theoretical.

>
> It's been a while since I asked you for a reading recommendation. So,
> which M should I FR?

This is my argument, which is mine, and it is not anybody else's too. I
have a series of posts on my blog about it:

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/species-phenomena-and-data/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/more-on-phenomena/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/disambiguating-the-theory-dependence
-of-observation-thesis-tdot/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/domains-and-theories-in-science/
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/08/domains-disciplines-and-levels/

I must put this into Normal Publication Form...

>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> I have a dim memory of reading an article about this, I think at
> >> >> OikosBlog. If you're interested I can try digging it up for you.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Chris
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Three eggs in nest 271".
> >> >> >> > "21% of plasma cells examined secreted IgA".
> >> >> >> > "Four Blackburnian Warblers were netted on June 5".
> >> >> >> > "The tibias of humans and chimps arose from the same embryonic
> >> >> >> > tissue".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > By themselves, facts are pretty much meaningless and
> >> >> >> > uninteresting. It takes an overarching theory to make sense of
> >> >> >> > them.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > And note- a fact is good for a particular place and time.
> >> >> >> > Likely,
> >> >> >> > someone else in some other place at some other time will
> >> >> >> > generate a different set of facts. That's why science is fun.
> >> >> >> > It's even more fun when someone gets the same set of facts you
> >> >> >> > did, because then you can gloat.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Chris

[John S. Wilkins]

Counting, identifying and applying the proper nomenclature to psocids
(or any other group) is definitely into the theoretical region of
observation. But suppose you have a pattern for some type of bug (a
vernacular term) and learn to recognise them readily (say, they eat your
crops). You may not have any of the theory, but you can still recognise
them.

There's a big difference between observing something reliably and being
able to *report* on your observations in a claer and unambiguous
fashion. See also my reply to Garamond.

[Richard Norman]

There is an certainly enormous difference between "observing
something" and "reporting your observation". The first is a purely
personal act, a mental activity that you and only you have any
awareness of. The only significance the observation has in the
universe is whether or not it changes the behavior of things around
it. And that depends on the reporting, not the observation.

Incidentally, I have observed the truth, the absolute truth, about
anything and everything in the universe. The only problem is that I
can't report it in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Now I am
confused. Is "the absolute truth" that I really did observe part of
objective reality or is it some theoretical construct that, so far,
only I posess?

[Kent]

Nice example. Quantum electrodynamics is not a fact but an approximate model describing certain aspects of the interactions between elementary particles. It is an approximation to the standard model of particle physics which in turn is an approximation to the unknown model of quantum gravity. Presumably the currently model of evolution is also an approximation to a complete model. At least we will never be able to show that it is not. That was Popper's point when he said we had replaced certainly with progress.

[Kent]

It seems to me that by calling evolution a fact you are setting yourself up for a world of hurt. By the Duhem-Qine thesis one can always get around any falsification and by extension any verification. With sufficient ingenuity, one can come up with a reason why any model including evolution may not be correct.


It seems to me we should call observations observations and models models (or theory if you prefer). Calling either of them facts leaves you open to valid objections.

I might add that observations are not so simple either. While I would soften Kuhn's claim that observations are theory laden to the claim that the interpretation of observations are theory laden or model dependent. The number of eggs does indeed depend on the definition of egg. I had a friend who was the chair of physics department. When you asked him a question like: How many faculty are in your department? He would say that depends on how you count and explain the uncertainties in the definition of "faculty" and "in". Is the adjunct professor really in the department?

But it is even worse. What we see is not necessarily there. Physiologists will tell you that observations, especially of unexpected events, is frequently mistaken. Even the claim that something is red is as much a statement about the human visual processing system as about the object being observed. And not even that, what we perceive as red depends not just on the wave lengths of light coming from the patch under consideration but also from neighboring patches. So before we are consciously aware of an observation the visual processing system has already built in a lot of model dependance.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<3721204.374.1328889108183.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prhn18>, Kent
<musqu...@gmail.com> writes

Per Gould, a fact is an inference that is sufficiently confirmed that it
would be perverse to deny it provisional assent. That's close enough to
the vernacular usage of fact that I have no problem labelling evolution
as a fact.

Epistemologists and philosophers of science may prefer to differ, but
they have the problem of producing a definition of fact that would not
exclude much that the laity would recognise as uncontroversially
factual. Is it a fact that the sun is a star? Is it a fact that Pluto
orbits the sun?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Kent]

Reminds of Christian fundamentalists redefining literal so the claim the bible is literally true is valid. You use the word "fact" one way, the person hearing the word interprets it differently and has a valid objection using his meaning of the word and you go around in circles and only succeed in convincing the public that scientist are sophists.

Lets not try to redefine common words. It only makes us look dishonest.

>
> Epistemologists and philosophers of science may prefer to differ, but
> they have the problem of producing a definition of fact that would not
> exclude much that the laity would recognise as uncontroversially
> factual. Is it a fact that the sun is a star? Is it a fact that Pluto
> orbits the sun?

Poincare would have claimed it was a convention. The word fact has too much baggage to be useful and it is not needed.

I do not define fact. I simply avoid the use of the word except to explain why I do not use it.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<15272793.59.1328892850219.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbbpm9>, Kent

<musqu...@gmail.com> writes
>On Friday, February 10, 2012 8:28:33 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
>> In message
>> <3721204.374.1328889108183.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prhn18>, Kent
>> <musqu...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Friday, February 10, 2012 4:10:42 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
>> >> In message <Wk0Zq.72828$7N1....@newsfe24.ams2>, R. Dean <"R.
>> >> Dean"@gmail.com> writes
>> >> >On 02/07/2012 10:11 PM, Kent wrote:
>> >> >> On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 6:42:44 PM UTC-8, chris thompson wrote:
>> >> >>> On Feb 7, 9:11 pm, Kent<musquods...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 4:44:15 PM UTC-8, wiki trix wrote:
>> >> >>>>> To the author of spaceman's quotations...
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>> My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
>> >> >>>>>> was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact,

>> >> >>>>>>theory.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> How do you define the word "fact"? In fact, there are no facts in
>> >> >>>>> science. At least not in the strictest sense of known truths. Only
>> >> >>>>> theories. The only certainty is that nothing is certain and the only
>> >> >>>>> sort of thing in science that comes close to being a "fact" is a
>> >> >>>>> repeatedly consistent observation or measurement, and even that must
>> >> >>>>> always remain suspect. A theory is never a fact. Colloquially
>> >> >>>>> speaking, however, you may hear scientists casually refer to
>> >> >>>>> scientific results as "facts". But that is really just sloppy talk.
>> >> >>>>> Certainly, the theory of evolution is a theory and not a fact. But
>> >> >>>>> hardly anyone other than the likes of you really gives a crap's ass
>> >> >>>>> about that sort of thing. It really does not matter much.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>

I thought it was you that was attempting to redefine a common word.

--
alias Ernest Major

[UC]

On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to
> speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my
> interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class.
> Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so
> widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.
>

> My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it

> was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.
>
> Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.
> I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what
> it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without
> any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as
> a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a
> proven fact, I get bothered.
>
> This particular professor went on to state that those who don't
> believe in evolution are wrong. He said that there are so many facts
> proving it's truth that one would have to be ignorant not to believe
> it. I found this to be deeply offensive. I am not ignorant simply
> because I choose to believe one theory over another.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1...
>
> J. Spaceman

The theory of evolution simply put is that all life today came from
earlier life and has been modified over eons of time, so that species
today are different from, but descendants of, earlier species. That's
all it says. Some species have died off, other left descendants which,
over time, under the pressure of natural selection, which weeds out
some natural variants that arise due to mutations that occur naturally
and which can be passed on to their offspring.

[Kent]

On Friday, February 10, 2012 9:32:56 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
d only succeed in convincing the public that scientist are sophists.
> >
> >Lets not try to redefine common words. It only makes us look dishonest.
> >

> I thought it was you that was attempting to redefine a common word.\\

No, it was Gould. If you mean fact, I simply try to avoid it and am generally quite successful in that.


>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/10/12 6:54 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Mark Isaak<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> [resposting; the last one got lost in the recent blackout]
>>
>> On 2/9/12 2:02 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> > Garamond Lethe<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I submit that the same processes, and hence the same application of
theory, apply to the egg data which started this discussion.

> But suppose you have a pattern for some type of bug (a
> vernacular term) and learn to recognise them readily (say, they eat your
> crops). You may not have any of the theory, but you can still recognise
> them.

I recently heard of an interesting experiment that may be relevant here.
Researchers created an artificial grammar of letters in a string, e.g.
F must be followed by L, N, or P; "FN" must be followed by B, but if the
N is preceded by anything else, it must be followed by B, C, N, or P.
Subjects were shown a number of strings (20, IIRC) which followed the
grammar, and as many that did not. Then they were shown new strings and
asked if they followed the grammar or not. Success rates were around 80%.

Another group went through the same process, but they were also told
explicitly what the grammar rules were. There performance on the
evaluation part was *worse* than the first group's.

So does that mean observations can be even better when they are not
based on theory? I submit not. In that experiment, the subjects were
trained on samples that were divided according to the theory of the
grammar. Someone else was applying the theory, but it was still being
applied.

Something similar goes on in recognizing insects. When I was first
learning to recognize psocids, I learned rules like, "strong mandibles,
membranous wings held rooflike over the body, ...". Now, the only rule
I apply is, "it looks like a psocid." But I had to go through the
theory-laden stage in order to get to the instant recognition stage.

And yes, there were other insects I grew up with and learned to
recognize simply by repeated exposure. I grant that learning those bugs
was not theory-laden, except insofar as all observation is theory-laden.
(We can save for another day the discussion of whether using "theory"
so broadly cheapens its meaning or not.) But those observations are
relatively few of the observations that get used as scientific data.

> There's a big difference between observing something reliably and being
> able to *report* on your observations in a claer and unambiguous
> fashion. See also my reply to Garamond.

Everything I have been talking about refers to observation, not reporting.

[wiki trix]

> Is it a fact that the sun is a star?

Not a fact. Just a fuzzy definition.

> Is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?

Depends on your theory of time. Block time says no.

[John S. Wilkins]

Wrong. Pluto orbits the sun, over time, forming an orbital trajectory
that endures in block time. Changing your metaphysics of time doesn't
mean things cease to be or do what they are and do.

[Kent]

On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:32:17 PM UTC-8, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Is it a fact that the sun is a star?
> >
> > Not a fact. Just a fuzzy definition.
> >
> > > Is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?
> >
> > Depends on your theory of time. Block time says no.
>
> Wrong. Pluto orbits the sun, over time, forming an orbital trajectory
> that endures in block time. Changing your metaphysics of time doesn't
> mean things cease to be or do what they are and do.

Wilkins is always the realist.

Pluto orbits the sun in a heliocentric frame of reference. In a Plutocentric frame the sun orbits Pluto. The choice of frame is determined purely by simplicity (Check out Poincare: Science and Hypothesis). This was beat to death in a previous thread.

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:12:47 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:32:17 PM UTC-8, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>> wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Is it a fact that the sun is a star?
>> >
>> > Not a fact. Just a fuzzy definition.
>> >
>> > > Is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?
>> >
>> > Depends on your theory of time. Block time says no.
>>
>> Wrong. Pluto orbits the sun, over time, forming an orbital trajectory
>> that endures in block time. Changing your metaphysics of time doesn't
>> mean things cease to be or do what they are and do.
>
>Wilkins is always the realist.
>
>Pluto orbits the sun in a heliocentric frame of reference. In a Plutocentric frame the sun orbits Pluto. The choice of frame is determined purely by simplicity (Check out Poincare: Science and Hypothesis). This was beat to death in a previous thread.
>

In a galactocentric frame of reference, Pluto just travels in a wobble
without making a loop at all, except around the galactic center. In
the time that it takes Pluto to make one orbit in the heliocentric
notion, the sun has moved a distance more than 300 times the distance
between Pluto and the sun.

[John S. Wilkins]

Kent <musqu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:32:17 PM UTC-8, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is it a fact that the sun is a star?
> > >
> > > Not a fact. Just a fuzzy definition.
> > >
> > > > Is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?
> > >
> > > Depends on your theory of time. Block time says no.
> >
> > Wrong. Pluto orbits the sun, over time, forming an orbital trajectory
> > that endures in block time. Changing your metaphysics of time doesn't
> > mean things cease to be or do what they are and do.
>
> Wilkins is always the realist.
>
> Pluto orbits the sun in a heliocentric frame of reference. In a
> Plutocentric frame the sun orbits Pluto. The choice of frame is determined
> purely by simplicity (Check out Poincare: Science and Hypothesis). This
> was beat to death in a previous thread.

And yet, if "orbit" means something like "travels around the primary in
cycles relative to the primary's frame of reference" (and it must), the
Pluto orbits the sun, even if one is a block theorist. In fact (and as a
block theorist I think this is the case) *especially* in block theory -
the orbit is timelessly existent, so "travels" as a present indicative
active verb is timelessly true.

[Kent]

On Friday, February 10, 2012 6:09:27 PM UTC-8, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Kent <musqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:32:17 PM UTC-8, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > > wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Is it a fact that the sun is a star?
> > > >
> > > > Not a fact. Just a fuzzy definition.
> > > >
> > > > > Is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?
> > > >
> > > > Depends on your theory of time. Block time says no.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Pluto orbits the sun, over time, forming an orbital trajectory
> > > that endures in block time. Changing your metaphysics of time doesn't
> > > mean things cease to be or do what they are and do.
> >
> > Wilkins is always the realist.
> >
> > Pluto orbits the sun in a heliocentric frame of reference. In a
> > Plutocentric frame the sun orbits Pluto. The choice of frame is determined
> > purely by simplicity (Check out Poincare: Science and Hypothesis). This
> > was beat to death in a previous thread.
>
> And yet, if "orbit" means something like "travels around the primary in
> cycles relative to the primary's frame of reference" (and it must), the

Primary's frame? What is the definition of primary and why should I care?
Must never applies to definitions.

[Garamond Lethe]

I'll agree with that if you allow me to insert the word "explicit" before
"theory of number". It's the ability to abstract that's important, not
the ability to think abstractly about abstractions.

> I think you are making a
> category error here: the existence of a theory that accounts for or
> explains some conceptual or behavioural feature is not the same thing as
> the feature itself. One is explanans and the other explanandum.

I may well be making an error, but I'm pretty confident that it's not
that error.

>>
>>
>> > David Hull once said that the use of the term "spinneret" is
>> > theoretical, which may be (I doubt it - names of objects are in
>> > themselves theoretical) but any six year old child (being the standin
>> > for an atheoretical observer) can point to where the silk is coming
>> > out of a spider when they observe it happening (I speak from
>> > experience).
>>
>> I think that's a marvelously self-defeating anecdote. How do you get
>> the child to point to where the silk is coming out? "Mary, can you
>> point to where the silk is coming out of the spider?" That requires
>> abstraction for "Mary", "point", "silk", "out" and "spider" and, as you
>> say, names of objects are theoretical.
>>
>> Now I'm confused. "Eggs" is a name as well, thus theoretical, and I
>> thought you wanted to make them non- or pre-theoretical.
>
> You seem to think that if there is no neutral observation language there
> is theory, and vice versa. That is a marvellously untenable idea. I had
> a name given me at birth - sure, my parents had to be able to track me
> through persistent changes and all that, but if *that's* what you want
> to call theory, then science is nodifferent from any human convention or
> practice, and we might as well admit the creationists are right that
> evolution has no higher standing than the literal reading of Genesis.
>

So here's an undergraduate-level definition of science for you to knock
over: the formulation, validation and refinement, by abstraction,
reason, intuition and experiment, of models of how the world around us
works.

This certainly encompasses most of human experience, including
creationism (and mathematics as well, if you're a Platonist). Rather
than follow Popper and try to narrow the scope of science, I'd rather
enlarge the scope and make an argument for science done well or poorly.

While the tactical benefits to this approach are substantial (convincing
someone they've made a bad scientific argument is far more tractable than
convincing someone they've made a non-scientific argument) the primary
benefit is that I'm forced to see religion --- and most creationists ---
and people who are trying to solve the same kinds of problems as I am
with a similar set of tools: they just happen to use those tools very
badly.

I learned language by hypothesis and testing. For example, when
returning home from my first drum lesson I proudly announced that my
parents needed to purchase the music book _The Performing
Persecutionist_. Unintended hilarity ensued, and I modified my
hypothesis about how the rest of the world pronounced the word
"percussionist".

That's an utterly trivial scientific hypothesis, but it's not clear to me
how its triviality excludes it from science.

>>
>> By this reasoning using a tape measure requires theory.
>
> By that definition of theory, taking a crap is theoretical.

How so? There's no abstraction going on there (well, not how *I* do it,
anyway....)

>>
>> It's been a while since I asked you for a reading recommendation. So,
>> which M should I FR?
>
> This is my argument, which is mine, and it is not anybody else's too. I
> have a series of posts on my blog about it:
>
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/species-phenomena-and-data/
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/more-on-phenomena/
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/disambiguating-the-theory-dependence
> -of-observation-thesis-tdot/
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/06/domains-and-theories-in-science/
> http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/08/domains-disciplines-and-levels/
>
> I must put this into Normal Publication Form...

I remember reading these as they appeared, but I think it would be a good
idea for me to review them as a whole. Thanks --- I appreciate this.

[Kent]

On Friday, February 10, 2012 4:37:59 PM UTC-8, Richard Norman wrote:

>
> In a galactocentric frame of reference, Pluto just travels in a wobble
> without making a loop at all, except around the galactic center. In
> the time that it takes Pluto to make one orbit in the heliocentric
> notion, the sun has moved a distance more than 300 times the distance
> between Pluto and the sun.

It works the same way for the earth-moon-sun system. In the heliocentric system the earth and moon behave very much like two cars successively passing each other on an oval track. Are they orbiting each other? Depends on how you define orbit.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kfaxl7.xqlfrg1bvudsbN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Kent <musqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 10, 2012 3:32:17 PM UTC-8, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > > wiki trix <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Is it a fact that the sun is a star?
> > > >
> > > > Not a fact. Just a fuzzy definition.
> > > >
> > > > > Is it a fact that Pluto orbits the sun?
> > > >
> > > > Depends on your theory of time. Block time says no.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Pluto orbits the sun, over time, forming an orbital trajectory
> > > that endures in block time. Changing your metaphysics of time doesn't
> > > mean things cease to be or do what they are and do.
> >
> > Wilkins is always the realist.
> >
> > Pluto orbits the sun in a heliocentric frame of reference. In a
> > Plutocentric frame the sun orbits Pluto. The choice of frame is determined
> > purely by simplicity (Check out Poincare: Science and Hypothesis). This
> > was beat to death in a previous thread.
>
> And yet, if "orbit" means something like "travels around the primary in
> cycles relative to the primary's frame of reference" (and it must), the
> Pluto orbits the sun, even if one is a block theorist. In fact (and as a
> block theorist I think this is the case) *especially* in block theory -
> the orbit is timelessly existent, so "travels" as a present indicative
> active verb is timelessly true.

Ah, but some folk think that pluto was a satellite of Neptune.

Perhaps rammed out of orbit by a Slaver ship traveling at close to
lightspeed.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kfaxl7.xqlfrg1bvudsbN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> And yet, if "orbit" means something like "travels around the primary in
> cycles relative to the primary's frame of reference" (and it must), the
> Pluto orbits the sun, even if one is a block theorist. In fact (and as a
> block theorist I think this is the case) *especially* in block theory -
> the orbit is timelessly existent, so "travels" as a present indicative
> active verb is timelessly true.

And yet, we have not observed a complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun.
The rest of the orbit is theoretical.

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:59:56 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

We agree: the "reality" of the orbits is the same as the reality of
the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system. All those little circles
depend on the perspective. The real reality is that the solution of a
second order linear differential equation involves periodic functions
but that involves putting a theoretical framework on the facts which
would greatly disturb our resident philosopher.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<uranium-21e1a11e-239e-...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.c
om>,

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>
> wrote:
> > From the article:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to
> > speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my
> > interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class.
> > Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so
> > widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.
> >
> > My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
> > was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.
> >
> > Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.
> > I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what
> > it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without
> > any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as
> > a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a
> > proven fact, I get bothered.

*
Do you get bothered when your priest (preacher, rabbi, etc.) speaks of
creationism as thought it's a fact?

earle
*

[Earle Jones]

In article <KlDN$XOxWU...@meden.invalid>,

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> as a fact....

*
Neal Stevens put it this way:

"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks
anything like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one."

--Neal M. Stevens

See: "The Same Old Arguments"

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/library/same_old.shtml

earle
*

[John S. Wilkins]

Why would it disturb me? I never said everything was theory-free.

[John S. Wilkins]

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <1kfaxl7.xqlfrg1bvudsbN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > And yet, if "orbit" means something like "travels around the primary in
> > cycles relative to the primary's frame of reference" (and it must), the
> > Pluto orbits the sun, even if one is a block theorist. In fact (and as a
> > block theorist I think this is the case) *especially* in block theory -
> > the orbit is timelessly existent, so "travels" as a present indicative
> > active verb is timelessly true.
>
> And yet, we have not observed a complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun.
> The rest of the orbit is theoretical.

Yes. What is observed but thought to be true is theoretical.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:21:37 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:59:56 -0800 (PST), Kent <musqu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, February 10, 2012 4:37:59 PM UTC-8, Richard Norman wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> In a galactocentric frame of reference, Pluto just travels in a wobble
>> >> without making a loop at all, except around the galactic center. In
>> >> the time that it takes Pluto to make one orbit in the heliocentric
>> >> notion, the sun has moved a distance more than 300 times the distance
>> >> between Pluto and the sun.
>> >
>> >It works the same way for the earth-moon-sun system. In the heliocentric
>> >system the earth and moon behave very much like two cars successively
>> >passing each other on an oval track. Are they orbiting each other?
>> >Depends on how you define orbit.
>>
>> We agree: the "reality" of the orbits is the same as the reality of
>> the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system. All those little circles
>> depend on the perspective. The real reality is that the solution of a
>> second order linear differential equation involves periodic functions
>> but that involves putting a theoretical framework on the facts which
>> would greatly disturb our resident philosopher.
>
>Why would it disturb me? I never said everything was theory-free.

So the "fact" that Pluto orbits the sun is not a simple theory-free
fact even though it may be free of a theory of time. On the other
hand, it could have been a different John Wilkins arguing that it is
definitely a fact that Pluto orbits the sun.

So what is theory free? There are so many examples of counting eggs
in a nest that depend on so many assumptions about what consists of an
egg and what consists of a nest, not to mention what consists of being
"in" that you had better find another example.

[Garamond Lethe]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:21:39 +1100, John S. Wilkins wrote:

> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1kfaxl7.xqlfrg1bvudsbN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
>> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>> > And yet, if "orbit" means something like "travels around the primary
>> > in cycles relative to the primary's frame of reference" (and it
>> > must), the Pluto orbits the sun, even if one is a block theorist. In
>> > fact (and as a block theorist I think this is the case) *especially*
>> > in block theory - the orbit is timelessly existent, so "travels" as a
>> > present indicative active verb is timelessly true.
>>
>> And yet, we have not observed a complete orbit of Pluto around the Sun.
>> The rest of the orbit is theoretical.
>
> Yes. What is observed but thought to be true is theoretical.

I think you dropped a "not" before "observed", but I will admit a certain
fondness for the original version.

[John S. Wilkins]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:54:27 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >
> >> [resposting; the last one got lost in the recent blackout]
> >>

> >> On 2/9/12 2:02 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> >> > Garamond Lethe<cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >

> >> >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:52:37 -0800, chris thompson wrote:

> >> >>> I will, as soon as you tell me what the theory is underlying the
> >> >>> observation (fact) "Three eggs in nest 271".
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) How did the observer classify broken eggs?
> >> >> 2) How did the observer classify eggs that appear to be unhatched from
> >> >> the previous season?
> >> >> 3) How did the observer classify eggs that appear to be from a
> >> different
> >> >> species?
> >> >> 4) If the eggs were in what could best be described as a "partial" or
> >> >> "incomplete" nest, how are they counted?
> >> >>
> >> >> And on, and on, and on.
> >> >
> >> > This doesn't depend upon theory, but upon careful observation, and tht

> >> > can be taught in the absence of theory. Likewise, it is not theoretical

> >> > to identify and count eggs, unless your notion of theory is so vapid as
> >> > to include any biological or cultural dispositions (in which case it
> >> > isn't at all enlightening about scientific theories, and the motivation
> >> > for the theory-dependence thesis is lost.
> >>

> >> At one time in my life, I had the task of counting the number of
> >> individuals of different psocid species in a number of beating samples.
> >> I did not then know different psocid species by name, so I gave them
> >> tentative names, and when I encountered a particular and unusual
> >> species, I simply labeled it "psocid R", to be identified later. When I
> >> got around to identifying it, I realized that it was not a psocid at
> >> all, but was in an entirely different order. I don't think I would have
> >> made that mistake if I had not had psocids on my mind.
> >>
> >> I also discovered, when I got a copy of _North American Psocoptera_,
> >> that the species I had been calling "psocid A" was actually two
> >> different species, and I had to go through the samples a second time and
> >> sort them out.
> >>
> >> So counting psocids is not just straightforward observation, but
> >> involves some theory, namely theory of distinguishing the bounds of just
> >> what it is I am counting. I might add that the theory involved in
> >> gathering the samples in the first place was far from trivial. Perhaps
> >> counting eggs is easier, but I suspect the same principles apply.
> >
> >Counting, identifying and applying the proper nomenclature to psocids
> >(or any other group) is definitely into the theoretical region of

> >observation. But suppose you have a pattern for some type of bug (a

> >vernacular term) and learn to recognise them readily (say, they eat your
> >crops). You may not have any of the theory, but you can still recognise
> >them.
> >

> >There's a big difference between observing something reliably and being
> >able to *report* on your observations in a claer and unambiguous
> >fashion. See also my reply to Garamond.
>

> There is an certainly enormous difference between "observing
> something" and "reporting your observation". The first is a purely
> personal act, a mental activity that you and only you have any
> awareness of. The only significance the observation has in the
> universe is whether or not it changes the behavior of things around
> it. And that depends on the reporting, not the observation.

I don't entirely agree. In some case this is true, but basically if you
can observe something and respond to it, there is a public aspect
already. I observe an egg and eat it, and my son sees me do it and does
the same. There's no reportage involved. Where's the theory in that?

>
> Incidentally, I have observed the truth, the absolute truth, about
> anything and everything in the universe. The only problem is that I
> can't report it in a clear and unambiguous fashion. Now I am
> confused. Is "the absolute truth" that I really did observe part of
> objective reality or is it some theoretical construct that, so far,
> only I posess?

Sorry, that is for Kantians to discuss only, and I am not a Kantian.

[John S. Wilkins]

I don't see why it should. I am merely saying that not every observation
is a theory. Is that so difficult to understand? I'm not saying there's
no abstraction, nor am I saying that things neatly divide into
O-sentence and T -sentences, nor am I saying that if something is
atheoretical *in that domain* it is atheoretical in *every* domain (we
can use the theories of physics in biology to observe, in
unbiotheoretical ways, biological phenomena). This whole discussion
seems rife with unwarranted dichotomies I am supposed to be adopting.

>
> >>
> >> By this reasoning using a tape measure requires theory.
> >
> > By that definition of theory, taking a crap is theoretical.
>
> How so? There's no abstraction going on there (well, not how *I* do it,
> anyway....)

You don't go to a toilet? Use toilet paper? Wash your hands? All this
involves abstractions...

Remind me not to come round to your place for dinner, okay?

[Garamond Lethe]

Those do indeed require abstractions. I had thought you were restricting
"taking a crap" to the biomechanics involved, which do not.

If you want to see the abstraction process for the above in action then
take a trip through western China. Everything from finding the toilet,
finding the toilet paper and washing your hands becomes an explicit (and
occasionally frustrating) exercise in making and verifying hypotheses.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:36:18 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

Observing an egg an then eating it is quite a different thing than
merely observing it. You say "if you can observe something and
respond to it, there is a public aspect". The public aspect consists
entirely of the responding, not the observing. This is the exact
equivalent of my statement that the public act is in the reporting,
not the observing.

[AGWFacts]

> Do you get bothered when your priest (preacher, rabbi, etc.) speaks of
> creationism as thought it's a fact?

More to the point, does she get upset when her cult guru speaks of
gravity as though its a fact?

> earle


--

"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one

theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[John S. Wilkins]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> So what is theory free? There are so many examples of counting eggs
> in a nest that depend on so many assumptions about what consists of an
> egg and what consists of a nest, not to mention what consists of being
> "in" that you had better find another example.

Nothing is theory free if by that you mean that no concept in the head
of the observer is without some general application. That is at best an
asymptote and only on a few variables not all of them. But if you
circumscribe the "theoretical domain" in which the observation is
relevant, it may be that no theory of that domain is employed. In that
sense an observation of eggs can be theory free for ornithology.

One must pay attention to scope and quantifiers.

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:25:57 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> So what is theory free? There are so many examples of counting eggs
>> in a nest that depend on so many assumptions about what consists of an
>> egg and what consists of a nest, not to mention what consists of being
>> "in" that you had better find another example.
>
>Nothing is theory free if by that you mean that no concept in the head
>of the observer is without some general application. That is at best an
>asymptote and only on a few variables not all of them. But if you
>circumscribe the "theoretical domain" in which the observation is
>relevant, it may be that no theory of that domain is employed. In that
>sense an observation of eggs can be theory free for ornithology.
>
>One must pay attention to scope and quantifiers.

In other words, you just boxed the term "theory free" out of
discussion by drawing a dividing line and saying the observation is on
this side and the theory is on the other side.

More to the point, modern science is so instrument dependent that very
few areas depend purely on sense data of the specific phenomenon
observed. Then, of course, there is the reliability of sense data
itself.

[John S. Wilkins]

Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:25:57 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> Wilkins) wrote:
>
> >Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> So what is theory free? There are so many examples of counting eggs
> >> in a nest that depend on so many assumptions about what consists of an
> >> egg and what consists of a nest, not to mention what consists of being
> >> "in" that you had better find another example.
> >
> >Nothing is theory free if by that you mean that no concept in the head
> >of the observer is without some general application. That is at best an
> >asymptote and only on a few variables not all of them. But if you
> >circumscribe the "theoretical domain" in which the observation is
> >relevant, it may be that no theory of that domain is employed. In that
> >sense an observation of eggs can be theory free for ornithology.
> >
> >One must pay attention to scope and quantifiers.
>
> In other words, you just boxed the term "theory free" out of
> discussion by drawing a dividing line and saying the observation is on
> this side and the theory is on the other side.

I. Did. Not. Draw. A. Line!

In fact I have tried, again and again, to say there is no line. Just as
there is no pure observation there is no pure theory - these are
notional extremes or poles. But it makes sense to say day is light and
night is dark even if day is not pure light and night is not pure dark.
Likewise, it makes sense to talk about theory even if it is "tainted" by
an admixture of observation, and it makes sense to talk about
observation, even if it is tained by theory.

My point, which I shall make - to the undoubted relief of all - for the
last time, is that *in the relevant domain* we can talk about naive
observation. Observation need not employ a scientific theory for that
domain. If you want to make theory mean anything other than direct sense
data (which I do not think exist) then *of course* all observation is
theoretical. But now if everything is theory, it makes no sense to talk
about theory in science, especially.

>
> More to the point, modern science is so instrument dependent that very
> few areas depend purely on sense data of the specific phenomenon
> observed. Then, of course, there is the reliability of sense data
> itself.

Not all science is so instrument dependent, even if a lot of it is. Not
all observation is Theory (to specify *scientific* theory) dependent,
even if a lot of it is.

OK, I've said it as clearly as I can. You get my point or you don't. I'm
not suggesting you have to agree, but at least try to comprehend what I
am actually saying here.

[Kent]

On Saturday, February 18, 2012 6:19:47 AM UTC-8, Richard Norman wrote:
>
> In other words, you just boxed the term "theory free" out of
> discussion by drawing a dividing line and saying the observation is on
> this side and the theory is on the other side.

Sometimes a lack of precision in words can lead to misunderstanding. One should distinguish between "raw observation" and the interpretation of observations. Let's go back to the egg. The raw observations are a pattern of wave lengths impinging on the eye. The eye converts these to nerve impulses which are massaged by the human sensory processing system and presented to the conscious mind. What is presented to the conscious mind is not what is seen. Colors are as much about the properties of the eye as about the actual wave lengths. In addition, the color "seen" for a patch of light depends on the colors of neighboring patches of light. The sensory apparatus then compares with previous observations and what ever and says Ah yes,an egg. But remember there was a lot of processing and model building going on in the back ground before the "mind" perceived the egg.

This happens at all levels. Observations are interpreted based on the minds current models of how the universe works. Some of this is conscious but much is subconscious.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 02:17:48 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

You did "circumscribe" to form a scope. What is that other than
drawing a line? OK, a curved line or a circle.

Now you say " Just as there is no pure observation there is no pure
theory". Earlier you said "This doesn't depend upon theory, but upon

careful observation, and tht can be taught in the absence of theory.

Likewise, it is not theoretical to identify and count eggs..." That
earlier statement sure sounded like pure observation to me.

Ernest Major already described a continuum: "My opinion is that
observations and inferences are not distinct categories. There is a
continuum from the most direct and least theory laden observations, to
the most indirect and theory laden observation. (And many observations
are more theory laden than is generally realised - a temperature
reading, mentioned upthread, is my standard example of how
observations are theory laden.) The continuum may be more than
one-dimensional." I immediately concurred with that observation and
you seem to subscribe to it now, also.

My impression is that you argue fine philosophical points at some
times while falling back on pragmatics at others. "This one here" is
an important distinction that must be maintained; "that one there" is
something that works in real life so it is not necessary to fuss about
the fine points.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Feb 7, 7:51 pm, Jason Spaceman <jspace...@linuxquestions.net>

wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Recently, I was sitting in a class in which my professor began to
> speak about evolution. As a believer of Biblical creationism, my
> interest is often piqued when evolution is brought up in a class.
> Normally, I do not mind a discussion of the theory since it's so
> widely accepted by my peers. However, this time, it was different.
>
> My professor started talking about the Theory of Evolution as if it
> was a fact. This is a problem. Evolution is not a fact, it's a theory.
>
> Defined, a theory is "an unproven assumption." Let's treat it as such.
> I have no problem learning about evolution if it's presented as what
> it is: unproven. I don't even mind learning about evolution without
> any mention of intelligent design or creationism, if it's presented as
> a theory. But, when a professor begins to speak of it as though it's a
> proven fact, I get bothered.
>

> This particular professor went on to state that those who don't
> believe in evolution are wrong. He said that there are so many facts
> proving it's truth that one would have to be ignorant not to believe
> it. I found this to be deeply offensive. I am not ignorant simply

> because I choose to believe one theory over another.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it athttp://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/evolution-theory-not-fact-1...
>
> J. Spaceman

Evolutionary theory explains what is observed.

That evolution occurs is a fact.

So one could argue that evolution is both a fact and a theory.

But theories are not facts.

They are the best explanations we have of the facts.