From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 12:04:01 EDT
One ought not to use examples that use non-scientific or nonphysical
terms such as the term "wrong." The latter has no scientific meaning. A
better example is how one interprets data collected by purely physical
devices. Say a click is heard in a counter, how does one infer that it
is an electron rather than a photon. In such a case, the creator of the
detector knows what makes it click and that may be an assumption based
on some theoretical presupposition or interpretation but is goes without
saying that that is the way we know or learn in science.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:38 AM
To: Dr. Blake Nelson
Cc: ASA; glennmorton@entouch.net
Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)
I've got to agree with Glenn here. There are no naked facts bereft of
any
theoretical presuppositions or interpretations.
You say below, "If a plane crashes, *something* went wrong."
Really? When
planes struck the Twin Towers 2 years ago, Osama bin Laden didn't think
that anything
had "gone wrong." He thought that what had happened was profoundly
right. Similarly
for Japanese kamikaze pilots. & for that matter even calling those
events "crashes" is
misleading because it suggests that they (like most plane "crashes")
were accidental
rather than deliberate.
Shalom,
George
Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:
>
> What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.
>
> If a plane crashes, *something* went wrong. The crash
> (the thing) speaks for itself that something went
> wrong.
>
> What exactly went wrong is a different matter and
> beside the point for the use of the phrase, because it
> is generally used in liability contexts where someone
> bears the risk of the failure, unless they can show
> that *something else* was responsible.
>
> A little context is usually a good thing to avoid
> confusion.
>
> --- Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> >
> > 9-28-03
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
> > >Behalf Of Jay Willingham
> > >
> > >The law has a saying, "res ipsa loquitor", e.g.
> > "the thing speaks for
> > >itself".
> >
> > res - thing, object, being, matter, affair, event,
> > fact, circumstance.
> >
> > You know, I have sat outside at night under the
> > stars, in a library with
> > lots of facts, and you know, I have never heard a
> > fact speaking for itself.
> >
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 12:04:15 EDT