Re: [Phys-l] DATA, FACTS, LAWS, THEORIES

[Hugh Haskell <haskellh@verizon.net>]

At 16:06 -0400 10/18/2009, ludwik kowalski wrote:
> 1) Evolution is a theory explaining many facts recognized by 
> biologists. Dawkins, on the other hand, according to the above, states 
> that evolution is a fact. Yes, I know that the term 'fact' can refer 
> to different things in common language. That is why scientists must 
> first agree on definitions of basic terms.
>
> 2) This paragraph is another illustration of the same thing. I suggest 
> that the term "fact" should refer to validated data  (accepted by most 
> practitioners), not to anything else. Likewise, I suggest that the 
> term  "law" refers to nothing else than a generalizations of facts.
I will admit that I cringed a bit when I saw a video in which Dawkins 
used that phrase, but if one looks at "evolution" as a term simply 
meaning "change over time," then it seems much more reasonable to 
assert that evolution is a fact. The observed fossil record is 
clear--by whatever method one can imagine the fact is that species 
have changed over time. Now when one extends the idea to "evolution 
by natural selection," then we have moved into the realm of theory 
(beyond hypothesis, since evolution by natural selection is a 
synthesis of an overwhelming body of evidence) or model by which we 
explain how the "fact" of evolution came about.

It isn't clear from Dawkins' comments if he does mean evolution in 
its more simple sense, or in its more complete and common meaning. 
I'm sure however, that if questioned about it, he would either modify 
his comment or clarify his definition of evolution to conform to the 
standards we are discussing here.

His insistence on using the word "fact" is, I believe, more of a 
rhetorical device than a logical one. He is trying to emphasize that, 
based on the overwhelming evidence and the interlocking methods by 
which evolution is taken to occur, evolution by natural selection is 
as close to a "fact" as almost anything scientific can be. The idea 
is over 150 years old, and all of the evidence so far developed 
supports it fully. This is a rather long lifetime for a theory to 
stand in the modern world, where challenging a prevalent idea is a 
widely accepted scientific activity. After all, few scientists are 
going to go down in history for confirming Darwin's work, it is the 
ones who successfully upset that apple cart who will be remembered.

Hugh
--
Hugh Haskell
mailto:hugh@ieer.org
mailto:haskellh@verizon.net

So-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko 
tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and 
water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 
21st-century industries, and make our cities safer. Don't let them 
get away with it!!

					Chip Giller, Founder, Grist.org