HP3000-L Archives

December 1999, Week 1

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Wendell E Gragg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:16:48 -0700
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (57 lines)
My problem is not that people posit theories and the like, but that they
confuse hypothesis and theory with fact.  While many in science will say
that any discovery of water on another planet MAY lead to a possibility of
life on those planets, there are others who will emphatically state that
the presence of water PROVES that there was once life there.  It is with
the last group that I disagree.  To me, a true scientist will always keep
an open mind and not let his preconceived notions rule his thinking and
his processes.

Now, I am not a scientist, but in my studies of theology, we have to do
similar things if we are to do the job right.  One of the first principles
of hermeneutics is that to do a proper job of interpretation, one must be
aware of his/her preconceptions and not let them rule.  It also makes the
crow taste a little better if one is proven wrong! ;-)

Wendell


On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Wirt Atmar wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, that isn't the way science works. The hypothesis, a
> cornerstone in the process of actually performing science, is intrinsically a
> speculative thought (to some degree or another), albeit based on a projection
> of the best possible current evidence and rational, logical theory. Indeed,
> the word "hypothesis" is Greek, meaning "underlying thought". Your current
> hypothesis governs everything about how you approach your experimental design
> and you build your instrumentation.
>
> The Mars Lander is precisely one of those instruments designed to serve a
> rational, hypothetical purpose. And, in this case, the lengths we'll go to
> prove our pet theories is 40 million miles :-). But all kidding aside,
> Wendell isn't the only person to voice this concern, within or outside
> science. However, I adamantly disagree with such a notion, as did Darwin.
> Darwin wrote the following in a letter to Henry Fawcett in 1861:
>
> "About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to
> observe and not theorize; and I well remember saying that at this rate a
> might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the
> colors. How odd it is that anyone should see that all observation must be for
> or against some view if it is to be of any service."
>
> I keep that quote framed next to my desk, as a constant reminder to what I
> should be doing on those days when I do get a chance to do science.
>
> Wirt Atmar
>

Wendell E. Gragg                 Socorro Independent School District
HP Library Systems Specialist    El Paso Tx
[log in to unmask]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
^Liberal:  One who believes that having self esteem is more important    ^
^than doing something to warrant it!                                     ^
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ATOM RSS1 RSS2