RE: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

From: Alexanian, Moorad (
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 12:04:01 EDT

  • Next message: Sarah Berel-Harrop: "Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)"

    One ought not to use examples that use non-scientific or nonphysical
    terms such as the term "wrong." The latter has no scientific meaning. A
    better example is how one interprets data collected by purely physical
    devices. Say a click is heard in a counter, how does one infer that it
    is an electron rather than a photon. In such a case, the creator of the
    detector knows what makes it click and that may be an assumption based
    on some theoretical presupposition or interpretation but is goes without
    saying that that is the way we know or learn in science.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [] On
    Behalf Of George Murphy
    Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 11:38 AM
    To: Dr. Blake Nelson
    Cc: ASA;
    Subject: Re: Darwinian and non-Darwinian (was Re: RFEP & ID)

    I've got to agree with Glenn here. There are no naked facts bereft of
    theoretical presuppositions or interpretations.

            You say below, "If a plane crashes, *something* went wrong."
    Really? When
    planes struck the Twin Towers 2 years ago, Osama bin Laden didn't think
    that anything
    had "gone wrong." He thought that what had happened was profoundly
    right. Similarly
    for Japanese kamikaze pilots. & for that matter even calling those
    events "crashes" is
    misleading because it suggests that they (like most plane "crashes")
    were accidental
    rather than deliberate.


    Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:
    > What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.
    > If a plane crashes, *something* went wrong. The crash
    > (the thing) speaks for itself that something went
    > wrong.
    > What exactly went wrong is a different matter and
    > beside the point for the use of the phrase, because it
    > is generally used in liability contexts where someone
    > bears the risk of the failure, unless they can show
    > that *something else* was responsible.
    > A little context is usually a good thing to avoid
    > confusion.
    > --- Glenn Morton <> wrote:
    > >
    > > 9-28-03
    > > >-----Original Message-----
    > > >From:
    > > []On
    > > >Behalf Of Jay Willingham
    > > >
    > > >The law has a saying, "res ipsa loquitor", e.g.
    > > "the thing speaks for
    > > >itself".
    > >
    > > res - thing, object, being, matter, affair, event,
    > > fact, circumstance.
    > >
    > > You know, I have sat outside at night under the
    > > stars, in a library with
    > > lots of facts, and you know, I have never heard a
    > > fact speaking for itself.
    > >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 12:04:15 EDT