Gordon Simons wrote:
> In order not to be misunderstood, let me add that I do approve of telling
> young people that radically new ideas frequently do encounter opposition
> -- at least for a time. What eventually overcomes this opposition, when
> the ideas are correct, are the things Ted Davis attacks: observations and
> experiments.
It is a misrepresentation of Ted's argument to say that he "attacks"
observations and experiments. What he said was that "scientific knowledge is
determined not by observations and experiments, but by the outcome of debates
about how to interpret observations and experiments ..."
I take that to mean (& assume Ted will correct me if I'm wrong) that
scientific understanding of the world is not determined _simply_ by
observations and experiments but by those observations and experiments as they
are interpreted by scientists. This does not "attack" or ignore observations
& experiments: There's nothing to interpret if we don't have them. It is
simply a recognition that all data are to some extent theory laden & - to take
the argument further - all our theories are to some extent influenced by
various cultural factors.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 07:28:11 EST