Hi all,
André asks
>Is "empirical truth" theoretical?
Theoretically yes, but in practice perhaps not;-)
I still maintain that "objectivity" in science is not philosophical, but
empirical - you "prove" a result to be objective by proving it to be
reproducible (for different observers).
Squonk, I agree with your take on the creationism issue, and believe the
theory of evolution is grossly misrepresented by its opponents.
My own position is that evolution is a direct CONSEQUENCE of everything
we "know" about the natural sciences; thus you cannot deny evolution
without chucking out large chunks of physics and chemistry.
As an aside, "plagiarism" isn't a complete no-no in science. Apprentice
scientists (i.e. Ph.D. students) learn to copy what others do, and then
apply the techniques to answer new questions. Also, copying someone
else's work doesn't invalidate the result, it confirms it . This is a
necessary part of science (i.e. proof of reproducibility). It is
completely ethical as long as one declares the fact that the work is
confirmatory.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:27 BST