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

Terry said:
"Heliocentricity is not a fact, it's a theory."

Somebody else on this list once wrote a paper (I think it was called something like 'the fact of evolution') where they gave a definition of a fact (from Gould) and I really like it- in that sense, evolution is a fact (evolution theory similar to heliocentric theory).

Gould quote:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"

Also- how could heliocentricity ever be wrong? Earth and planets in our solar system don't orbit the sun? May as well say you don't really have two legs; as it can be observed directly now, why argue?

...Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Terry M. Gray
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:44 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (what's a fact?) Brilliant article by Dawkins

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 Fri Aug 28 21:59:18 2009