From: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: bsmart@bsmart.TTI.COM (Bob Smart)
Organization: Citicorp+TTI
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:31:28 GMT

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.

> For example, whether atoms had objective reality was the subject of debate
> for over a century.

Until advances in microscopy and related fields made it possible to
observe them directly, their existence as real, physicial objects was
open to debate.  Several theories to explain the (observed) behavior of
matter relied on the idea that atoms, or something very much like atoms,
were real, and observations of matter contributed to the theoretical
picture of what "atoms," if they existed, would have to be like.  When
atoms were observed directly, there was no further room for argument
about their existence--but their existence was OBSERVED, not "proven."

There's another crucial scientific concept lurking in the background,
here, one that deserves to be made explicit.  If someone were to produce
empirical evidence that CONTRADICTS what is currently regarded as
scientific fact, the process operates in reverse, too.  The history of
science is also littered with examples of "facts" that were later
refuted by better observations, demonstrations that the observations or
records of observations in support of the supposed "facts" were flawed,
and so forth.  Something becomes a "fact" when you see it directly. 
When I come along later and show you that no, you didn't really see what
you thought you saw (and this is how the illusion is produced), facthood
is revoked.

This stands in marked contrast to religion, where Truth is eternal
because the revelation of Truth is by definition infallible and without flaw.

> The nature of their substructure
> was contentious until quantum mechanics provided a mechanism for atom 
> stabilities.  *Now* you call it a fact.  But the theory was proven.

Until somebody comes along and upsets the applecart, the theory is
generally accepted.  That's not the same as "proven."  Quantum mechanics
is properly a theory (because it serves to explain observations), and as
a theory it's well supported by observation, but that's all.

> If you will call all proven theories "facts" then I suppose that you must be
> correct that you can never prove a theory.  You can only prove facts.
> 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
merits.  Theories which are generally accepted are not "proven," they're
simply not yet disproven.  The longer a theory survives, the more
confidence scientists tend to have about it, but the whole point of the
scientific paradigm is that nothing is beyond question.

---------

A fanatic is someone who does what he knows that God would do if God knew the
facts of the case.

Some mailers apparently munge my address; you might have to use
bsmart@bsmart.tti.com -- or if that fails, fall back to
72027.3210@compuserve.com.  Ain't UNIX grand?
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic