jcrawford wrote:How does science determine what a fact is then if scientists reject the fundamentalist worldview in which Absolute Truth exists? According to Van Til and Rushdoony, science borrows philosophical, metaphysical, theological and biblical concepts like truth, fact, belief, reality, logic and order, in order to just set up shop.
You seem to assume that to be a fact, something must be Truth. This is an unwarranted assumption. A fact simply is. If we describe it accurately, then our
description is true.
Sure, science--like anything else that is a human endeavor--borrows its language from previous conversations. It also unavoidably borrows cultural and religious assumptions on the part of the humans who participate in it. These kinds of assumptions are hard to recognize; hence, the development of Rules such as obtaining reproducible data and publishing the methodology so that everything can be verified independently.
jcrawford wrote:Yes, but only because we are able to share the same experience of observing our car keys fall to the floor. If you said that your car keys disappeared because I stole them, you would have to substantiate that theory, interpretation, data and "fact" with some sort of visible evidence like a video tape of me stealing them or being apprehended while driving your car.
Yet, the fact itself is independent of observation. To be a useful fact--a useful datum--it must be reproducible. According to The Rules, I am required to publish sufficient information that you can reproduce the experiment. You don't need to rely on my report of the result--
except insofar as you rely upon my accurate description of what I did. So, yes, we do need to share the same experience--the data need to be reproducible.
If I said you had stolen my car keys, I would be
interpreting data. The data would remain fact--my keys are not where I expected to find them. Your having stolen them is one hypothesis. Another is that I left them in my other pants. Yet another is that they have been knocked into another dimension by a stray particle beam emanating from a spaceship near Aldebaran. As you say, I would need to test the various hypotheses before any of them would classify as a valid interpretation. Until then, the Fact remains as fact: my keys aren't there.
jcrawford wrote:Jose wrote:Apparently, this is another of those times that The Language is a problem.
Yes, the English language is a problem, especially when trying to solve non-mathematical metaphysical problems pertaining to nature, history, reality, human knowledge, belief, psychology, philosophy, religion and human origins.
You make light of my statement, but the issue is quite serious. It's not just a matter of metaphysical discussion. It's a simple fact that different fields use words differently. We've had this discussion before, as you recall. I point it out again, because--as is evident from the bit I put in blue above--that your field of expertise finds it satisfactory to use "theory, interpretation, data and fact" synonymously. In science, these terms are quite different.
jcrawford wrote:Yes, but the inescapable reality of a "datum" is limited to, and only created by, those who able to directly observe, measure and reproduce the experience for themsleves. If I don't see a tree fall in the forest and there is no evidence that one did, how do I reconcile my own experience with that of others who claim 10 trees fell? Maybe we are talking about a different forest. Language problem?
Given this inescapable reality, it is necessary to publish the methods by which anyone can reproduce the observation.
As for the tree, the answer is obvious. If a tree is lying on the ground, there's the datum. If there are 10 trees on the ground, there are 10 bits of data. To assure reproducibility of the observation, it is necessary to provide directions to the relevant location, so that others can share the experience. Then, we ask "what other data are there?" Perhaps meterological data would be helpful...was it windy? Was there a tornado? Perhaps we could look for sawdust...was there a guy with a chainsaw? On the basis of the data, one builds one's hypothesis.
jcrawford wrote:If a 'fact' is not "agreed upon" by those concerned then there is an argument about what is claimed to be a fact.
Which is why The Rules require publishing the methods, to ensure that only
reproducible data are considered valid.
jcrawford wrote:How do I know that you dropped your keys in the first place? If you tell me that you dropped your keys the other day and they fell to the ground, I would be inclined to believe you, even though I don't know for sure that you really did drop your keys the other day.
The Rules solve this problem. I provide you with the methodology to test whether I'm talking through my hat. If your experience with the method provides data that are essentially a repeat of what I observed, then it looks like "keys fall" is pretty likely to be valid data.
jcrawford wrote:The explanation and interpretation of the 'data' is dependent on the fact that the 'data' has been mutually qualified and selected to serve as explanatory 'data' by the interpretation of the theory in the first place. One has to evaluate and interpret the data in order to selectively qualify it for inclusion as evidence in support of the theory.
If we are considering explanations for the "keys fall" observation, then we are justified in including observations concerning the falling of things, but not including observations concerning the color of copper sulfate. In general, one builds one's explanation on the basis of the data that are most pertinent. But, in science, unlike religion, there is always the assumption that someone else may offer more data, and show that the interpretation was incorrect. Maybe I don't have all the data. Maybe my interpretation makes sense, but is wacky. Maybe I've made erroneous assumptions. That's OK. Someone else will find out where I went astray.
The interpretation may be based, initially, on a subset of the available data. In the end, it must be consistent with all of the data, and falsified by none of the data.
jcrawford wrote:You seem to think that data is suggestive of, and precedent to, the theory. Einstein said it was the other way around - that the theory interprets and decides what empirical data may be interpreted to be selected as contributory evidence in substantiation of the theory.
The data
are precedent to the theory. Unless you've observed that things fall, you won't even think of trying to explain why they do. So, what the heck was Einstein talking about, if it sounds like he's saying the opposite of standard scientific practice? Well, in my typical stupid-analogy fashion, I refer you back to an earlier sentence. For considering gravity, we won't select data on the color of copper sulfate. In considering theories of genetic inheritance, we'll ignore data on the falling of keys. In considering theories of the color of inorganic compounds, we'll ignore data on genetic inheritance.
If you want to use The Scientific Method, you might state your hypothesis first, and consider data only afterward. Yet, even this is not in violation of what I have said--that the data are precedent to the explanation. In this flavor of Scientific Method, one is using a powerful logical framework for
checking one's understanding, or testing the hypothesis that was previously built on the basis of data.
jcrawford wrote:All of evolution is held together by theoretical chains and links. Find one weak link to snap in the theory and the whole shebang must be bunk. That's why this sixties yuppie has become a born again Neanderthal descendent of Noah. I'm physically related to Christ through His own ancestral tree.
It is comforting to some, to imagine that evolution is all "theoretical chains and links." While there are theoretical aspects, there are also a vast number of hard facts. It turns out that finding a weak link fails to negate the other facts. At this point, your breaking of a weak link is much like snipping a single thread in a spider web. That thread needs to be dealt with, but the rest of the web remains. Even such grandiose projects as the RATE project fail to recognize this. At best, they snip at threads. What they absolutely fail to do is address the rest of the web--all of the other data that need to be explained.
If a man speaks in the forest, where no woman can hear...
...is he still wrong?
