Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Art, i agree with you on provisional hypotheses, but i don't understand how you can draw the distinction between provisional hypotheses and facts. Certainly everything is subject to certain limits of verifiability, but this alone doesn't mean that all observations or conjectures or opinions are of equal merit. I also think that it rigidity and polarity don't exist solely in the domain of "facts", in fact i'm pretty certain that polarization is a function of people and not "facts".
Yes, two people can stand on opposite sides of a room and see two different, equally valid things, but if the same two people were to observe the behavior of an object falling off of a shelf they would observe the same phenomena and that phenomena could be reliably and factually described as gravity.
|
Actually, gravity is a theory based on the evidence presented. Granted, there is no evidence thus far that a huge Electrolux sits at the center of the earth with its power perpetually in the 'on' position....
Scientific theories, no matter how compelling the evidence toward them is, must remain 'theories' based on the continuing nature of discovery and the conclusions based on said discovery.
All those two people could conclude factually is that the object did, indeed fall down. Thus is the basis of debate and discussion.