Re: [Phys-l] Global Evolution as fact

[Kyle Forinash <kforinas@ius.edu>]

Hugh; I agree with much of what you are saying but the word 
"observation" is also problematic. Observations are often (if not 
always) theory dependent. On a trivial level, if you observe a current 
flow with an ammeter you are already assuming that the theory of e&m 
works well enough to make an ammeter work in the way we think it is 
suppose to work. Do we observe the sun rise or the earth turn when the 
angle between the sun and the earth's surface changes? Almost all our 
observations depend on prior knowledge. Without a theory, how do we even 
know what observations to try to make (we surely don't go around 
observing every single thing around us)? As Neurath wrote: Scientists 
are like 'mariners who have to rebuild their ship on the high seas, 
without ever being able to strip it down in dock and construct it afresh 
from the best available components' Otto Neurath Message: 17 Date: Mon, 
10 Jan 2011 19:13:05 -0500 From: Hugh Haskell <haskellh@verizon.net> 
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Global Evolution as fact To: Forum for Physics 
Educators <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu> Message-ID: 
<p06240801c9514396aec7@[192.168.1.5]> Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset=us-ascii; format=flowed At 14:28 -0500 01/10/2011, Kyle Forinash 
wrote:

> >
> >Having co-taught a course in philosophy of science I can tell you that
> >the concept of a "fact" is not well defined in science because
> >scientific "facts" change over time. Some scientists (e.g. Aristotle)
> >once were absolutely sure the earth was at the center of the universe
> >(and they had perfectly good reasons to think so). A second problem is
> >we often teach "facts" that aren't really true (e.g. Newton's laws,
> >Snell's law, etc.). Just about any set of definitions that attempt to
> >distinguish between fact, law and theory either can be shown to be
> >inconsistent or flies against common usage (Kepler's laws are not true
> >but the theory of relativity is).
> >
> >So what to do if there are no "true facts" (in some set of absolute
> >sense) in science? Here are two ideas that seem to work: 1. Often we are
> >justified in believing certain things to be true, given the evidence we
> >have at hand (at least until there is counter evidence, at which point
> >we are justified and perfectly rational in changing our mind). The
> >overwhelming evidence for evolution and global warming makes it rational
> >to accept  as true or factual. You may decide evolution or climate
> >change needs more work, you may not believe it in the same way that you
> >might believe God exists but to be scientific, you really should accept
> >it as a fact (always continent on the possibility of new data!). 2.
> >Often it is rational to accept something as "true for the purpose of".
> >Newton's laws are true for the purpose of building bridges.
> >
[snip]

That is the philosophy of science that we need to be teaching to our students.

In fact, we probably need to quit talking about facts and theories
altogether, and start talking about models and observations. We know
what those words mean.

Hugh
-- Hugh Haskell mailto:hugh@ieer.org mailto:haskellh@verizon.net It 
isn't easy being green. --Kermit Lagrenouille

--
------------------------------------------
 'Before you open your mouth, just remember,
  the empty wagon rattles the loudest.'
         -- my dad

  kyle forinash   812-941-2039
  kforinas@ius.edu
  http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------