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

Delurking for a bit to comment on this interesting thread:

The ontological status of facts is something that has been continually
muddled in the creation-evolution debate. Barring a Cartesian demon,
there is very good warrant to believe that what I perceive (i.e.
observations about the world, in the manner of Terry's examples) is a
fact. There is even more warrant when many people, from many walks of
life, with the assistance of many modes of viewing including
scientific instrumentation, etc. corroborate that my observation lines
up with their observation.

But in the context of "evolution is a fact" this is often not what is
meant. Well, charitably I must grant that part of what is meant
involves that, inter alia, we have fossils in the ground at different
rock layers that suggest change over time. Even some YECs grant that
evolution is a fact in that sense, though they don't like the
phrasing. But usually, and especially in the fashion that has been
popular ever since Gould's essay on the subject, "evolution is a fact"
is used to great rhetorical effect -- I think, unfairly. Because
evolution means many things to different people, and evangelists of
evolution wish to use the strong epistemic foundation of geology and
paleontology to imbue all further developments of evolutionary theory
with the same warrant. That evolution simpliciter is a fact does not
imply that Darwin's theory of natural selection is a fact (even Darwin
would agree with me here), nor indeed that it ever could be if "facts
and theories are different things" as Gould opined. We really ought
to find a new way of speaking about evolution so that it is not so
easy to confuse the two.

I liken it to the notion of the sayings source Q, ostensibly a source
for Matthew and Luke. To say "Q is a fact" might mean tautologically
that there is material in Mt and Lk that is not in Mk which matches,
thus Q exists. But to others, "Q is a fact" might be interpreted as
"QMa is a fact" or "Q1, 2, ... is a fact", which might lead to the
notion of rival factions in early Christianity being as strongly
supported as the existence of Q. I have heard biblical scholars
indicate that it is indeed safer not to talk about Q because of the
difficulty of sorting out the distinctions -- and the reason it is
difficult is because all have been espoused as being a necessary
corollary or even the plain meaning of "Q is a fact".

And don't get me started on the intimidation implied by the
"overwhelming" evidence of evolution..

Chris

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Terry M.
Gray<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
> Bernie,
>
> Yes, that's close to where modern philosophy of science is today.
>
> Perhaps we should say that a fact is an observation that is conditioned by
> the observer and the theoretical constructs that the observational apparatus
> exists in.
>
> So...
>
> Heliocentricity is not a fact, it's a theory. Geocentricity was never a
> fact, it too was a theory. Both are based on the same observations.
> Interestingly, I'm not sure that Ptolemaic geocentricism didn't fare as well
> as Copernican heliocentricism with respect to predictions. I would guess
> that a flight to the moon could be successfully carried out under Ptolemaic
> geocentric predictions with respect to the celestial motions. I'm not sure
> how Ptolemy would deal with the rocket.
>
> The facts are things like the motions of certain lights in the sky (sun,
> moon, planets, stars, etc.) as detected by the human eye, telescopes
> (terrestrial and extra-terrestrial).
>
> Those observations, especially when they are conditioned by the conditions
> that gave rise to them, never change. All the rest are theories, inferences
> from those observations.
>
> Heliocentricism is more elegant, simple, integrates with other theories
> (Newton, Kepler), etc. That's why we think it is correct.
>
> If you haven't ever read a basic philosophy of science introductory text, I
> would recommend Del Ratzsch's "Science and Its Limits" which I think is the
> current and revised version of his original "Philosophy of Science"
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Science-Its-Limits-Christian-Perspective/dp/0830815805/ref=ed_oe_p
>
> TG
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Dehler, Bernie 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.
>>
>
> ________________
> 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.
Received on Thu Aug 27 07:45:57 2009