From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:17:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Man, you go out of town for a little while and all heck breaks loose
;^) I'm going to try hard to restrain myself and only answer those
points I feel most warrant responses in this forum...  Forgive me if
my restraining abilities aren't completely up to the task...

In article <1992Dec22.174823.11972@cas.org> jem26@cas.org 
     (Jay E.  Martin) writes:

>I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but there are a few
>points I really think are important.  First, most people are posting
>information without giving clear definitions of the terms being thrown
>around.  I saw a few definitions last week, but they were definitely not
>appropriate for high school students.

Rather than make such generalizations, I'd much prefer it if you would
state specific cases.  For my part I've tried hard to be clear for a
young audience, but it's not easy to proceed without feedback.

>Second, most of the people posting seem to have only a limited
>knowledge of the subject, but speak as if they were authorities.

Once again, specifics please.

>Please let us know your background so we can judge your credibility.

Our backgrounds should be totally irrelevant, IMHO.  There are three
good and obvious methods for assessing anyone's credibility, and
knowing their background isn't really one of them.  The three methods
I'd recommend are a) pay attention to what the person says (or writes)
and decide if it makes sense and is consistent.  b) ask what you think
are pointed questions to seek clarification, or to generate more data
to be appraised as in (a). and c) do some work on your own to find out
if you can verify or refute the statements made by the individual in
question (i.e. go to the library).  However, I will indulge you and
say that I have a BSE in biomedical engineering, and am hopefully less
than a year away from completing a PhD in neuroscience.

>Third, it seems that virtually no one in this groups understands the
>"scientific method".  

Speak for yourself.  In case it helps any, I've also had a few courses
on the history and philosophy of science (since my previous words
don't seem to have convinced you).

>...  My point is that we can't go on pointing
>at all these theories as facts.  This was pointed out by a previous
>poster, who followed it with the same mistake:
>
>>  Science is in the business of finding facts, not truth.  If you want
>>to know something about the truth, go to Doug Arner's philosophy
>>course down the hall. (The names have been changed to protect the
>>innocent :-)  It is a fact that we share common ancestry with all
>>other known species on this planet.  That's the best a scientist can
>>say about the subject.  
>
>I disagree with with your statement.  It is not a "fact" that we share
>a common ancestry with all other known species on this planet.  It is
>a fact with we share DNA sequences , and in many cases similiar (to
>varying degrees) DNA with all other known species, but that doesn't 
>"prove" that we have a common ancestry (although is does imply it).

I am the author of the passage you quoted, and I will resubmit my
statement.  It *is* a fact that we share common ancestry with all
other known species on this planet.  That you disagree speaks more to
your lack of familiarity with the topic than my misunderstanding of
the scientific method.  That you think my statement is based on the
"sharing of DNA sequences" alone speaks *volumes* in that regard.  How
is the "fact" established that the earth revolves around the sun?  I
am very confident that for every piece of information that you can
find that supports that fact (or in your Popperian sense "for every
potentially falsifying test that the *theory* that the earth revolves
around the sun can pass") I can come up with an equally compelling
piece of information that supports the fact of the interrelatedness of
all extant (and perhaps it would be better to say known) organisms.

...

>attacks from both sides are getting us nowhere.  Either drop the
>subject, or put your flame throwers away.  This is an opportunity
>for many of us to learn, not a chance to defeat the enemy.  

Oddly enough, I agree.  Unfortunately it is not only reasonable people
that set the game or the rules. 

>Finally, a comment about how scientist are supposed to work.  We are
>stuck with limited information and tools but we are supposed to
>discover the unknown.  This can only be done by questioning.  A good
>researcher will question everything (creationism, evolution, ...).

And again, I agree.  As I ended a previous post, so shall I end this
one.  The fact of evolution may well be spurious.  However, for the
time being it is a fact according to the best evidence science has to
offer. 

>- Jay E. Martin

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)