🚀 go-pugleaf

sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:


>|> If in physics one had always dismissed "simplistic" arguments,
>|> one would have got nowhere. On the contrary, the textbooks are 
>|> full of "simplistic" solutions to difficult problems.

>By *definition*, a *simplistic* solution is not a solution (think
>along the lines of "false friend").

>I did, by the way, not merely *label* the position as simplistic,
>but went on at some length to indicate its flaws (which in any
>event are well known).

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. 

Some in the discussion quoted scientists (e.g. Eddington) saying that every 
observation needs a preceding theory. Well, some scientists are 
unsatisfied by the approach to the world that science pursues,
and Eddington surely felt this very deeply to be so. I can follow his 
unsatisfaction, but do not agree with it. He resolved it by 
saying that science is somehow wrong, and he concluded that 
this is due to the theoretical framework which supposedly, he says,
brings people to mix facts and personal prejudices, leading to 
his statement that theory preceds fact.

The discussion would become more interesting if somebody of the opposing camp
would  give a precise example of which "theory" is necessary to observe
something ! (Eddington surely was not able to do so ...)

		Christoph Schiller