>I've already posted a response on Bacon, but in your original post you
>actually said "theories have no place" under this view.
Again Jim, this is an incorrect rendition of what I wrote. I said that A
PRIORI theories are believed to be innapropriate under Bacon's strict
requirement for total objectivity by the observer (read scientist).
Bacon proposed an extreme method of science that elevated objectivity to an
unreasonable height. In his attempt to make science free of all
subjectivism, he limited the scientist to being only a dispassionate
observer and collector of data who was not tainted by any a priori belief.
be self evident--the data would be self organizing and a priori theory would
only interfer with this process. This is the antithesis of the hypothesis
driven science. I teach my students to formulate models using data
currently available, and then to design experiments to test the models.
According to Bacon, this approach injects unnecessary a priori prejudice on
the part the scientist. Bacon was comfortable with simply observing nature
and making generalizations from what he saw. Modern science tries to
recapitulate nature in the laboratory in ways than Bacon would say injects
too much subjectivity.
>As you have lately asked Art, I'd like to see some creationist quotes that
>really argue this way.
Sorry, but I've not asked Art for quotes.
For the viewpoint of the ICR, I refer you to what I quoted in my earlier
post, which was in response to Randy Landrum's statement of his philosophy
of science--both of which were remarkably similar.
The ICR uses a dictionary definition of science as its philosophy of
science. The definition that they use is Baconian in the way that it
relegates the scientist to a completely objective observer, and in the way
that it claims that obectively collected data will yield obvious jtruth.
The definition leaves no room for hypothesis testing or data interpretation
which is how science is done.
>Inductivist science is not bereft of hypothesis or theory.
Oh? Show us, Jim.
It is actually
>"pseudo-science" of the evolutionary stripe that fails to distinguish what is
>fact and merely speculation.
The demarcation between fact vs theory is a different topic altogether.
Again you have detly changed the topic.
Phil Johnson's treatment of this issue is still
>persuasive.
Not among scientists.
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
____________________________________________________________