Re: Latest on Mars

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:24:24 -0500

>
>Professor Clark responds:
>
><<Depends on how you define experiment. I define it as testing an
>hypothesis>>
>
>Experiment has a specific definition. Scientists, at least those outside of
>Wisconsin, define experiment as an *observable operation* undertaken to
>discover some unkown principle, or test some suggested hypothesis. "You can
>look it up" (Casey Stengel, professor of baseball sciences, Univ. of Yankee
>Stadium).

I'd be careful about using dictionary definitions of science. The Creation
Research Institute did that and picked out a Baconian definition (I forget
which dictionary it came from--the Oxford Dictionary, perhaps). I disagree
that paleontology is not science. Say someone makes an hypothesis that
dinosaurs displayed behavior patters similar to modern day birds. The
hypothesis is testable by examining the fossil record. For instance, he may
posit that if the hypothesis were true, then he should find evidence of
nesting behavior in dinos. The data collected by the paleontologist are
certainly different than the data collected by controlled manipulation of a
phenomenon, but both types of data represent empirical tests of hypotheses.

>
>But analysis of past events is something different altogether.
>
>You cannot observe what has already happened, can you? Your answer: ____ Yes
>_____ No. (Hint: The answer is No).
>
>You and Tom just are not appreciating the difference between causal science
>and historical science, IMO.

We are required to handle the different types of data differently. I agree
that there are significant differences. There are different levels of
confidence and different limitations as to what different types of data can
tell us. But, they are experimental data, nonetheless.

SC
><<It can also be restated as "rapid continuous change." Gradual means
>continuous, and says nothing about how fast. You can have rapid and slow
>changes that occur gradually as opposed to incrementally. I don't see the
>problem with the language here.>>
>
>Actually, gradual means "proceeding or changing by steps or degress made or
>effected by SLOW, easy...stages."
>
>This is from Websters New Collegiate, considered by careful writers to be one
>of the best dictionaries extant (see Zinsser, "On Writing Well.")
>
>Gradualism is slow, albeit incremental, change. That's why "relatively rapid
>gradual morphologic change" makes no sense.
>
>You know, words have meanings for a purpose. You can't go around changing them
>or people will not know what you're talking about.

Gradual: Advancing or progressing by regular or continuous degrees:
gradual erosion; a gradual slope. This is from the American Heritage
Dictionary.

I really don't think that one often considers a slope as being SLOW.
Frankly, gradual is used both ways which, again, makes me see no problem
with the phrase "rapid gradual...change."

The bias of the "Realist" is beginning to show.

Cheers,

Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"Universities are full of knowledge; the freshmen bring a little in,
the seniors take none away...the knowledge accumulates." Mark Twain
__________________________________________________________________________