Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Philosophy before science ? (was : S
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 8 Jan 93 00:08:42 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> In article <102936.2005.14241@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakk
> >    
> >>  Science *is* the study of basic facts, ....    
> >   (science, basic-facts)    
> >    
> >>  ..time, space, matter, interactions, motion, change. All of these are   
> >>  basic facts.     
> >   (basic-facts)    
> >    
> >>  Science is to be judged by facts...    
> >   (science, facts)    
> >    
> >However My Son!    
> >'fact' is not a fact unless it is prescribed by a theory...in other words  
> >there are NO facts in science unless we prescribe one by a theory...and whe
> >you withdraw the theory away, all the facts attached to it disappear into t
> >thin air....  
>   
> This is pure, unadulterated nonsense.  Theories arise in reaction to  
> facts discovered beforehand (not by "induction", certainly, but there  
  
these are NOT our 'facts' ??!!  
  
> are facts before the theory).  It's true that some facts framed in  
> terms of a theory depend heavily on the theory itself for their sense,  
> but not all of them.  
  
we agreed on to talk about 'facts' only according to a theory, just for  
the sake of clear communication among our colleages in our mutual scientific  
efforts ....:-)...so we don't know what you are talking about when you   
say there were facts before the theory...what facts ??!! whose facts ??!!!  
we DON'T need such loose FACTs anymore...:-)...go away ...!!!  
don't waste our time ...:-)  
  
> it is like this; if we didn't invent QM then we wouldn't have     
> >electrons..but, of course, if electrons are _some_ facts for you :-> then  
> >what would you do without QM, you would look like a fish out of pond  
> :-)  
>   
> The discovery of the electron predates formal QM :-) :-)  
  
which electron ? according to what theory ? under what exprimental setup  
according to what theory ?  
  
> >as you say, fortunately, the middle-ages are over with all their bogeys cal
> >- scientific-facts...:-)  
  
> There is a world, and some statements about it are true and known to  
  
'there is a world' ?!! is this a grammatical observation about 'world' ?  
  
> us.  The term "scientific facts" is unfortunate; "scientific" refers  
> to the way the facts were uncovered, not any feature of the facts  
> themselves.  
  
Our subject matter is what is 'fact' in our scientific activities ...  
  
> ..now we can live happily here-after without clinging   
> >to some theories as if they were revealed words of the God...  
>   
> Such clinging would not be proper scientific methodology.  
>   
> and also    
> >we don't confuse the revealed words of the God with  
> scientific-facts....  
>   
> God reveals Its (real) Word only to those whose methodology is  
> properly scientific :-)  
  
and this must be revealed to you by the same God :-)  
however my Son, you are not even properly scientific, listen to what you  
said:  
  
> to the way the facts were uncovered, not any feature of the facts  
> themselves.  
  
'feature of the facts' ??!! what facts ? according to what theory ?  
and according to what observation prescribed by what theory ?  
  
> >> Christoph Schiller                           
> M. Randall Holmes