Re: [asa] fact vs. theory

I share this with the permission of the author involved.

I just finished reviewing an excellent book soon to be published (the
author hopes) by John D. Mays in which he has a chapter 2 titled "Truth
and Facts". Since publication is still pending, I won't include direct
quotes, but here is a rather close paraphrase of some of what he says in
that chapter that is Germaine to this thread.

For the context of the science classroom the author proposes that
"truth" be regarded as a proposition that is accurate for all people, at
all times and is given to us through revelation. (& he includes the
"two books" model for how that revelation comes to us as Christians).
In distinction, the author thinks of "fact" as a proposition based
closely on observations, experiments, and even inferences drawn from
those kinds of things. In this sense, he is allowing a broader usage of
"fact hood" than what Keith or your atheist friend may have just been
talking about (being just "uninteresting brute observations with error
bars"). This author allows that facts may include propositions about
those observations using examples like these: that momentum is
conserved in any physical interaction, or that there are approximately
100 billion stars in our galaxy, or that our solar system is
heliocentric. He maintains that facts can change as information and
observations may change or improve. But he also distinguishes between
"definitional facts" and observations/inferences. It used to be a
definitional fact that our solar system had nine known planets. Now
(because of a change of definitions) it is a fact that our solar system
has 8 known planets. This fact could change with more discoveries and
more powerful telescopes. Historical facts are ones that we depend on
previous testimony & records to know because they can't be verified by
any repeatable means. (e.g. That Lincoln served as our president
during our civil war.) The author gives other more examples of various
categories of facts.

But suffice it to say, he thinks that the word "truth" should be
reserved more for revelation, and that "fact" is a more appropriate term
for the science classroom and is, as such, more malleable to possible
change.

I will offset my debt here by promoting John's book in advance, which is
written for science teachers ---and especially for science teachers in a
Christian context. As title or bibliography information may develop in
coming months, I'll be glad to direct any interested parties to that
work. John, I'll send this your way as well so you can nix this, or
correct any misrepresentations of mine.

--Merv

kbmill@ksu.edu wrote:
> Bernie:
>
>
>> Thanks for your insight.
>>
>> " Theories are always subject to modification, if not rejection."
>>
>> Seems like facts are also sometimes rejected in light of new
>> information, correct?
>>
>
> In the sense that observations can be incorrect, yes. At the same time,
> an underlying assumption of science is that, in general, our senses do
> give us "true" information ("facts") about a real objective external
> reality. If I see a chair, I can assume that there really is an object
> occupying that space that can be described as a chair. However, we can
> be fooled - it may be an illusion. But we usually have ways of making
> additional observations to test whether or not what I saw was real or
> an illusion.
>
> Keith
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Feb 4 10:45:10 2009