Re: [Phys-l] Global Evolution as fact

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 01/09/2011 07:47 AM, ludwik kowalski wrote:
> 2) Controversies resulting from not distinguishing facts and theories are very common

Please let's not go there.  It just derails the conversation, by 
making it sound like this is about terminology and categories,
when it isn't.  You can disparage and derail *any* conversation
by saying "oh that's just semantics" ... but sometimes that's not 
right, because some conversations revolve around actual ideas that
transcend terminology, categories, and semantics.

=====

Getting back to the actual ideas....  Suppose we have:
   Construct "A" (categorized as a theory)
   Construct "B" (categorized as a fact)
   Construct "C" (categorized as a theory)
   Construct "D" (categorized as a fact)
   Construct "E" (categorized as a theory)
   Construct "F" (categorized as a fact)
   Construct "G" (categorized as a law)
   Construct "H" (categorized as a rule)
   Construct "I" (categorized as a model)

The important ideas are
 1) Every one of those constructs is open to question.
 2) They are not /equally/ open to question.  Really, really not.
 3) Knowing what category it is in gives you no help whatsoever when
  deciding whether -- and in what ways -- to question something.

For one thing, the process of putting these constructs into categories 
is at least as error-prone as the process of constructing the constructs
in the first place ... even if we pretend the categories meant anything 
to begin with.  I won't even dwell on the fact that the word "theory" is 
grossly ambiguous and has been for thousands of years ... because the
more important idea remains: the categories don't matter.

If you are going to overthrow an established idea, details matter.  Not
categories.  It does absolutely no good to challenge a construct "in 
general" or "in principle".  You need specifics.  You need details.  
And you need a lot more than that.

In virtually all cases, you need to come up with an /improvement/ over
the old construct.  Sometimes your improvement can be a "patch" i.e. a
specific systematic exception that can be applied to the old construct.
Sometimes your improvement takes the form of a wholesale replacement of
the old construct.  Then, in any case, you need to explain in detail 
why the alleged improvement should be considered an actual improvement.

This is what distinguishes real scientists from cranks, crackpots, and
whiners.