NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4734

Text File | 1993-01-11 | 2.7 KB | 55 lines

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasghm
From: [e-mail] (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Which theory before observation ?
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:07:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <schiller.726487694@hpas5> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <schiller.726741489@hpas5>
Nntp-Posting-Host: theseus.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 41


In article <schiller.726741489@hpas5>, [e-mail] (schiller c) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Christopher Green) writes:
|>
|> >>In article <schiller.726487694@hpas5> [e-mail] (schiller c) writes:
|> >>>My position as a scientist is that facts, i.e. the  results of observation,
|> >>>are the basis of theories. There are no "well-known" flaws of this position.
|> >>>
|> >I'm afriad that this is simply ill-informed. The observation-theory distinction
|> >has long been a matter a controversy in philosophy of science. The best-known
|> >"flaws" are put forward in Putnam's "What theories are not."  The position
|> >outlined there is a little technical, but the central example is that one
|> >cannot establish, through obsevation, that a thing is red unless one has
|> >a conceptual scheme for colors that includes red in advance.
|>
|> You are right: one needs a concept of red. But a concept and a theory
|> are two different things. Red is a concept formed by children
|> before they are six months old, and it gives a name to certain class
|> of colours. When a child says: "it is red", it just says, "it has a similar
|> look than all the previous things I have observed, which I call red".
|> The statement "It is red" therefore just compares different observations.
|> Not much of theory there.
|>
|>             Christoph Schiller
|>

You are right: one needs a concept of electron. But a concept and a theory
are two different things. Electron is a concept formed by physicists
before they are given degrees, and it gives a name to certain class
of particles. When a physicist says: "it is an electron", it just says, "it has a similar
look than all the previous things I have observed, which I call an electron".
The statement "It is an electron" therefore just compares different observations.
Not much of theory there.

I wonder why the physicists need so much more funding than do the children.
Facts are facts?

--
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / [phone]
[e-mail] ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm