The subject matter of science is data collected by non-human devices. How that
data is interpreted, whether by further machines or man, is not the point. Why
and how the experiment was set up to obtain the data is also secondary. The
essence is that science deals solely with data obtained by devices other than
human detectors. If someone claims to have seen a ghost, the first thing we
think of is to get a picture of it. There are umpteen reasons for collecting
particular data, but the data must be gotten by machines. Data collecting is
not objective, but the data is. It is clear that humans can collect data by
using their senses but one knows that such data can be gotten by machines as
well. In a bubble chamber one does see swirly lines that have to be
interpreted but the data was, nonetheless, taken by the chamber. Moorad
>===== Original Message From "bandstra@ese.ogi.edu" <bandstra@ese.ogi.edu>
=====
>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 - 21:17:57 EDT