Re: How long must we wait?

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:59:54 -0600

At 10:37 AM 12/16/96 +0100, Oliver wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>[deleted]
>
>> With this Baconian definition of science, creationists can point to the
>> fact that evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and since theories have
>> no place in this inductivist view of science, creationists argue that
>> evolution is not science. But they use an archaic Baconian version of
>> science that, as I explained above, is really unworkable.
>>
>> [clip]
>>
>
>If you define science this way or that way is totally irrelevant, when
>you use the word fact.

Why do you say this?

Evolution may be scientific , but the be regarded
>as a fact it must fulfill more requirements , especially those which you
>called baconian. Otherwise science is only the religion with the
>scientists speaking as priests in an authoritative manner.

I'm not sure what your point is Oliver, but I did not say that evolution was
fact. I would argue that the so-called "Baconian requirements" do not
adequately distinguish fact from theory.

Regards,

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 Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
____________________________________________________________