>No set of data can be explained by only one theory. You wish to have
data
>that do not follow this rule ...
then responds:
Rule? What rule? Where did Steve's "rule" come from, out of the blue?
And
Steve once again mis-represents me. I neither wish, nor require, that
the
data follow his rule.
Steve's 'rule' did not come out of the blue - it is simply a version of
the well known and uncontroversial principle of the underdetermination
of theory by data. As a simple example, think of data as points on a
graph, and of a theory as some line passing through those points. No
matter how large the set of points may be, there will always be an
unlimited number of lines that can be constructed to pass through all of
them. Some will be elegant, smooth, etc., and some wildly complicated,
but that is a different matter. Selecting from among the alternative
lines typically - make that invariably - involves a variety of
subsidiary philosophy of science issues and presuppositions.
So it isn't a matter of choice - that is simply the way data behave.
Del Ratzsch