Here is a good reason why we should define science by its subject matter as
data collected by physical devices and so not run into the difficulty that you
guys are expounding. You can use the data as you like and that may lead to bad
"science" but the subject matter, the data, is what is important. Of course,
the data leads to laws and such laws can be unified via theories. Moorad
>===== Original Message From george murphy <email@example.com> =====
>Gordon Simons wrote:
>> In order not to be misunderstood, let me add that I do approve of telling
>> young people that radically new ideas frequently do encounter opposition
>> -- at least for a time. What eventually overcomes this opposition, when
>> the ideas are correct, are the things Ted Davis attacks: observations and
> It is a misrepresentation of Ted's argument to say that he "attacks"
>observations and experiments. What he said was that "scientific knowledge is
>determined not by observations and experiments, but by the outcome of debates
>about how to interpret observations and experiments ..."
>I take that to mean (& assume Ted will correct me if I'm wrong) that
>scientific understanding of the world is not determined _simply_ by
>observations and experiments but by those observations and experiments as
>are interpreted by scientists. This does not "attack" or ignore observations
>& experiments: There's nothing to interpret if we don't have them. It is
>simply a recognition that all data are to some extent theory laden & - to
>the argument further - all our theories are to some extent influenced by
>various cultural factors.
>George L. Murphy
>"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 02 2002 - 13:06:03 EST