From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:45:47 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep5.043128.6508@ttinews.tti.com>, bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart) writes...
>In article <26037@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> Your argument is unfair.  All the items I listed were hotly contested
>> theories at one time.
> 
>No, they weren't.  "Theories" are proposed explanations for observed
>phenomena.  The items you listed were not explanations for anything;
>they were all statements or descriptions of observed phenomena.

This answer is only true from a modern perspective.  People would not 
have described it this way at the time.  Tell someone in the 1750's that
the objective reality of atoms is just a description of observed 
phenomena, and some of them would vehemently argued against your claim,
because this *fact* was a hotly debated *theory* at the time.

The same thing applies to telling some early physician that the fact
that blood circulates though the body is just a statement of observed
phenomena.  They would tell you that there was no evidence to 
support that theory.

> 
>> But it seems to be like you're twisting the language just to win what 
>> ends up being a vacuous argument.
> 
>It's only "vacuous" if you consistently and systematically misunderstand
>what science is, or can't (or won't) grasp the difference between a
>theory and a fact.  Facts do not require proof; they stand on their own

Well, I guess since I'm only a nuclear physicist that I probably *do* 
consistently and systmatically misunderstand what science is. Geez.  Get a life.
How many physics papers have *you* authored?

Now to get past the personal attack:

One of my items was "Atoms have nuclei."  This theory was proposed to 
explain the phenomena of hard scattering off gold foils and the like.
It was a theory in every sense of the word.  If you think otherwise, then
you are rewriting history.  Go back and look - see if it was treated
as a theory to explain a set of observations.  You will find that it was.

I think that the problem we are having is that some people are defending
a model of science which just doesn't correspond to reality.  Karl Popper
was very insightful - but he did not cause all other philosophers of science 
just to fold tent and go home.  Theories *do* become facts, Popper 
notwithstanding.  To say otherwise is to make the mistake of judging the 
past by the standards of today.  You have to understand how people thought
and dealt with these things *at the time*.   Today, the existence of atoms
as real objects is considered fact.  But there *was* a time when it was
a hotly debated theory, for which the experimental techiques were insuffient
to provide a clear unambiguous anwer. 

-Scott 
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16035 talk.origins:10967