From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 18:01:08 EDT
Hi Glenn,
Sorry, you misunderstood my failed attempt at being
pithy, as George's follow up and my response
clarified.
I agree that one cannot make a fact/interpretation
dichotomy. In explaining the context of the use of
the phrase in law, I was just trying to clear up the
error in the understanding of what the phrase meant.
As I stated in my reply to George, it is not meant to
be a philosophical statement, but a pragmatic approach
to a practical and very real problem that existed in
product liability law. In that respect, IIRC Jay
seemed to be inappropriately extending the concept.
By the same token, your understanding of the statement
was not what the statement meant. But, not knowing
what the term of art means in the law, that is
certainly no fault of your own. ;)
--- Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:
> Blake wrote of may stating that I had never heard a
> fact speaking for
> itself.:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Dr. Blake Nelson
> [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
> >Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:20 AM
>
> >
> >What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.
>
> Glad you liked my novelty. But it was not meant
> like you are taking it.
> The point is that facts do fit into theories and
> hypothesis. Some facts can
> be explained in many different ways. But, the more
> facts you have to fit
> into a coherent theory, the harder it is to 1. find
> that theory, and 2 the
> harder it is to salvage all the other theories.
>
> The YEC movement often makes use of the concept that
> facts must be fit into
> theories in order to wiggle out of conclusions. The
> thing they miss is that
> with lots and lots of facts, the viable theories
> shrink tremendously. That
> is why you will see YECs explaining fact A with
> theory A and fact B with
> contradictory theory B. Only by explaining things
> in the 'local' method can
> they explain anything. To build a logically
> consistent, coherent theory from
> ALL the facts at one time, would drive them towards
> the theories which are
> generally accepted.
>
> I won't be drawn in to the wierd direction you took
> off of my comment that I
> have never heard a fact speak for itself. BTW, the
> approach I took is not
> really novel to me. I stole it from Lewis Binson I
> believe.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 18:01:56 EDT