🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <schiller.726487694@hpas5> schiller@prl.philips.nl (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. 
>
>Some in the discussion quoted scientists (e.g. Eddington) saying that every 
>observation needs a preceding theory. 

There is no necessary contradiction between these two positions.

>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

I may be opening a can of worms by bringing up a particularly controversial
source, but Paul Feyerabend does so in _Against Method_, with specific
reference to Galileo. My copy is at a friend's apartment but I would be
glad to fetch it and post relevant portions. Email me if you think this
would further discussion.


      Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
 *****************************************************************************
  plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology