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

From: Dr. Blake Nelson (
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 18:01:08 EDT

  • Next message: Donald Nield: "Re: Magnetic field energy loss"

    Hi Glenn,

    Sorry, you misunderstood my failed attempt at being
    pithy, as George's follow up and my response

    I agree that one cannot make a fact/interpretation
    dichotomy. In explaining the context of the use of
    the phrase in law, I was just trying to clear up the
    error in the understanding of what the phrase meant.
    As I stated in my reply to George, it is not meant to
    be a philosophical statement, but a pragmatic approach
    to a practical and very real problem that existed in
    product liability law. In that respect, IIRC Jay
    seemed to be inappropriately extending the concept.
    By the same token, your understanding of the statement
    was not what the statement meant. But, not knowing
    what the term of art means in the law, that is
    certainly no fault of your own. ;)

    --- Glenn Morton <> wrote:
    > Blake wrote of may stating that I had never heard a
    > fact speaking for
    > itself.:
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >From: Dr. Blake Nelson
    > []
    > >Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:20 AM
    > >
    > >What a novel, literal approach to the phrase.
    > Glad you liked my novelty. But it was not meant
    > like you are taking it.
    > The point is that facts do fit into theories and
    > hypothesis. Some facts can
    > be explained in many different ways. But, the more
    > facts you have to fit
    > into a coherent theory, the harder it is to 1. find
    > that theory, and 2 the
    > harder it is to salvage all the other theories.
    > The YEC movement often makes use of the concept that
    > facts must be fit into
    > theories in order to wiggle out of conclusions. The
    > thing they miss is that
    > with lots and lots of facts, the viable theories
    > shrink tremendously. That
    > is why you will see YECs explaining fact A with
    > theory A and fact B with
    > contradictory theory B. Only by explaining things
    > in the 'local' method can
    > they explain anything. To build a logically
    > consistent, coherent theory from
    > ALL the facts at one time, would drive them towards
    > the theories which are
    > generally accepted.
    > I won't be drawn in to the wierd direction you took
    > off of my comment that I
    > have never heard a fact speak for itself. BTW, the
    > approach I took is not
    > really novel to me. I stole it from Lewis Binson I
    > believe.

    Do you Yahoo!?
    The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 18:01:56 EDT