George makes the point that theory enters the data collection process at
the interpretation stage. I would add that theory enters also into the
matter of what data to collect and consider. That is, deciding what
experiments to perform is itself a subjective process. Subjectivity and
value ladeness are present in all aspects of the scientific enterprise;
from deciding what questions are interesting to conceptualizing experiments
to building an apparatus to interpreting the output etc.
There is, however, something to what Moorad is putting forth in that there
is something objective about science (especially the data collection part)
that sets it off from other human activities. This, perhaps, because it is
a fairly easily taken assertion that the data are the same to all people.
If the signal was 0.2 amps to me, it is so to you as well.
Still, I'm not sure what Moorad is pushing towards in saying that data
collection is objective. Moorad, care to elaborate?
-----Original Message-----
From: george murphy [SMTP:gmurphy@raex.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 8:53 AM
To: Moorad Alexanian
Cc: Lucy Masters; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: Griffin #2]]
Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> It is impossible for me to do science or just be a plain, ordinary human
> being and not believe in a Creator. That is the tenure of my first
sentence.
This is your own self-understanding, with which I have no argument.
It
is clearly not the self-understanding of many other people, including a lot
of
competent scientists. & I think there's no compelling theological reason
why it
should be.
> The statement I make is that the data for science is collected
solely
by non-human devices, viz. >mechanical, electrical, etc. Needless to
say,humans
design those devices, which are theory laden, >but the data itself is still
collected by devices that do not include man as a "detector." Moorad
1) Doesn't data gathered by naked eye (or ear &c) observations
qualify? & even though astronomers seldom actually look through their
telescopes, they do look at photos, CCD readouts &c.
2) Theory doesn't just enter in the construction of instruments,
but in
inferences from the readings of instruments. As in my previous example,
what is
actually seen in a bubble chamber photo is swirly lines. The data usually
reported, that certain reactions take place in protons-antiprotons
collisions or
whatever, requires a lot of theoretical inferences.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 24 2001 - 16:04:09 EDT