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

Bernie,

First, no. If a fact must be certainly true to really be a fact, there can
still be facts. Whether we're grasping any of those facts is another matter,
and if the apparent answer(s) to that is uncomfortable.. oh well. Yes, that
leads into the philosophy area that Dawkins sniffs at, and I have some
sympathy for that general attitude. I have less sympathy for people who
bemoan philosophy while still engaging in it - and my biggest complaint with
Dawkins and company is their tendency to stuff unwarranted, inane
metaphysics into their discussion of science (fine) while neglecting to
mention that what they're then talking about is no longer purely science,
but metaphysics (horrible). That they then scream bloody murder when others
do this, typically with far greater care (Conway Morris, Ken Miller, etc) is
rich.

Anyway, mangle the distinctions between fact, theory, hypothesis, etc all
you please. There's some kind of poetic irony in your redefining fact here
anyway. As I said, if we go by your standards then geocentrism was a fact
for a long, long time. Then heliocentrism was a fact, and geocentrism was
not. Now heliocentrism is not a fact (or perhaps it's a fact in some
modified sense - even better!), and it's been replaced by something else. Do
you think Dawkins himself is yelling about how evolution is a fact with the
understanding that when it comes to facts, "some are false"? Really, can you
imagine talking about evolution to a YEC arguing that evolution is a fact,
justified by other facts, and also facts can be wrong and many facts have
been disproven? It'd play out like an SNL skit.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Schwarzwald said:
> “A fact that can be disproven isn't a fact - if it's disproven, it wasn't
> a fact to begin with. “
>
>
>
> If a fact has to be ultimate truth in order to be a fact, then *there are
> no facts*. The only facts we have today are the ones not yet disproven,
> which doesn’t mean they are true… just not disproven yet.
>
>
>
> I look at facts as the smallest building blocks upon which we construct
> higher complex opinions. For example, how old is the universe? The answer
> is based upon the facts you know. YEC’s and TE’s disagree because they are
> dealing with different facts. Some of those facts are true, and some are
> false. The facts can be based in science, history, and theology.
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Schwarzwald
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:38 PM
> *To:* asa@calvin.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins
>
>
>
> A fact that can be disproven isn't a fact - if it's disproven, it wasn't a
> fact to begin with. By your reasoning, geocentricity was a fact until better
> observation came along. Then suddenly heliocentrism became a fact. And then
> heliocentrism was no longer a fact after we realized the sun isn't the
> center of the universe.
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Terry said:
> "Are you sure heliocentricity is a fact?"
>
> It is a true fact until disproven, like all other facts. What we know, for
> sure, is that geocentricity has been disproven. It is a false fact.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
> Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 12:00 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: 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.
>
>
> 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.
Received on Wed Aug 26 20:44:46 2009