Re: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins

Bernie,

Are you sure heliocentricity is a fact? Dawkins, in his recent piece,
calls heliocentricity a theory, rightly, I think. There are facts/
observations that lead to a heliocentricity inference, right? It could
then be asked, what is the theory-ladenness of those (or any)
observations?

I think these are the kinds of questions that modern philosophy of
science push us to ask. One of the consequences is that the difference
between fact and theory is lessened. Perhaps a main difference is that
the word "theory" is used to tie together lots of theory-laden facts.
We speak of some theories as "fact" when they appear to be highly
confirmed via lots of disparate theory-laden facts and over time
involving significant challenges to their success.

TG

On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

>
>
> Moorad said:
> " Is there a difference between a scientific and a historical fact?
> When are they the same and when different?"
>
> Facts are pieces of data to which you use to infer other facts or to
> form opinions. A 'scientific fact' is based on science, and
> 'historical fact' is based on history.
>
> A scientific fact from ancient history, now known to be wrong:
> Geocentricity
>
> It is replaced with the modern scientific fact called heliocentricity.
>
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:22 AM
> To: Jack; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: RE: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
> Is there a difference between a scientific and a historical fact?
> When are they the same and when different?
>
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Jack [drsyme@verizon.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 6:33 AM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
> I dont know about it being brilliant. He spends a lot of time
> talking about how evolution isnt a "theory" its a fact, when we all
> know that the word theory has more meanings than the sense that he
> is using it.
>
> I also bristle a bit at his suggestions on what preachers should
> preach about. This is disingenuous isnt it? What he really wants
> is for there to be no church, no preachers, and no religion.
> Perhaps he wants the preachers to say that the existence of Adam and
> Eve isnt factual just to create dissension, not to spread truth.
> Since evolution does not necessarily negate the historicity of Adam
> he is straying to far from his area of expertise here.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Roberts<mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> To: christians_in_science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:christians_in_science@yahoogroups.com
> > ; asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu> ; acg@list.dordt.edu<mailto:acg@list.dordt.edu
> >
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 3:04 PM
> Subject: [asa] Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
> No, I am not joking. There was an absolutely brilliant article in
> The Times today on the menace of creationism. Excellent stuff, not
> one attack on Christianity. It does have a few necessary comments on
> bishops and clergy put in an understatement.
>
> Ii is on http://tinyurl.com/nhgu7m
>
> Michael
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 25 15:01:00 2009