Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Jan 11, 2008, at 6:57 PM, Jack Uretsky wrote:4.  The "fact", 
"theory" dichotomy is a red-herring that should be
> discounted IMO.  It is not what the dialogue is really about.  As a 
> high
> school history teacher, whose past included dealing poker in a saloon,
> once taughtd me, "Never play another man's game."  "Fact" vs. "theory" 
> is
> nott our game and we should avoid it.

It depends. Suppose reproducible experimental data are called "facts" 
while explanations (logical models) are called "theories." Then, by 
avoiding the dichotomy, we would be avoiding scientific methodology. 
Yes, I know that this is not a scenario that Jack is advocating.
_______________________________________________________
Ludwik Kowalski, a retired physicist
5 Horizon Road, apt. 2702, Fort Lee, NJ, 07024, USA
Also an amateur journalist at http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/