Susan,
Most science branches deal in theories specific to their fields - attempts to explain events, processes, or phenomena - and those theories are based on the best knowledge available at the time. To claim that "science doesn't care whether an explanation is more useful; it is either a correct explanation or a wrong one" indicates a naive and rather ignorant perspective on science. What is "correct" now could be proven "wrong" some time later. Newton's laws of motion were "correct" in his time, but when Einstein came with his general theory of relativity Newton's laws proved to be "wrong." Are we going to see an update on Einstein theories on time and space? I am sure that we will. Will Einstein's theories be proven to be "wrong" in the sense YOU use the term? It might happen. I would rather use the word "update" to indicate that new facts and theories (explanations) would fit better in a more advanced and expanded perspective on space and motion than call Newton's theories "wrong" and Einstein's theories "right."
You seem to speak with full confidence about science and what science is, and about what is "right" and "wrong" in science. What makes you an expert in such matters? Would you care to share with us the source of your authority and the expertise behind it? Thanks!
No offense intended.
Eduard
----- Original Message -----
From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2010 21:57
Subject: Re: a few more thoughts about science
To: [log in to unmask]
> > To me, it's not just science, but the study of language that
> shouldn't be thought of as a free for all. Some explanations are
> decidedly more useful than others.
>
> I think you have made a nice distinction between hard and social
> science. With the social sciences the value of an
> explanation can be relative: how many parts of speech are
> there? But science doesn't care whether an explanation is
> more useful; it is either a correct explanation or a wrong one.
>
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
> > Susan,
> > I think "a good scientist is as certain as
> the current evidence
> > allows" is something I can live with. I don't think you stop being
> > skeptical because the evidence backs a position up, but that's
> not a
> > big issue.
> > Whether we think of it as science or not,
> knowledge accumulates within
> > a discipline like linguistics in large part because of the shared
> > exploration of people in the discipline. Either it deepens our
> > understanding of language (satisfies us in that way) or it
> fails to do
> > so. I would hate to think that knowledge about language is
> just up to
> > the individual and that everyone's views are equal. Perhaps
> that's not
> > what you are advocating. To me, it's not just science, but the study
> > of language that shouldn't be thought of as a free for all. Some
> > explanations are decidedly more useful than others. We have to move
> > toward that goal somewhat collegially.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >> Scientists have been characterized (present, perfect,
> passive) as
> >>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
> opposite--a
> >>> good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
> >>> especially his/her own.
> >>
> >> No, this is not accurate. A good scientist is as
> certain as the current
> >> evidence allows. She is not more skeptical of her own
> position simply
> >> because it is her own. It only became her own position
> BECAUSE of the
> >> amount of evidence she has found in its favor.
> >>
> >> What you probably meant to describe is a scientist's
> theory. She should
> >> work just as hard disproving her theory as proving it.
> However, in the
> >> end, we are human and a good scientist knows this and so
> relies on peer
> >> review BECAUSE she knows she might be partial to her own
> theory--even
> >> though she thought she did her best to disprove it. If
> her theory passes
> >> peer review, then she can be as confident of her theory as
> anyone else and
> >> need not be any more skeptical of it than anyone else.
> >>
> >> You seem to be describing science as a free-for-all in which
> all ideas
> >> have equal certainty and skepticism. I know you know
> that is not a true
> >> representation. Yet there are degrees of skepticism
> that you seem to hang
> >> on to. These are the same degrees of skepticism that
> Intelligent Design
> >> proponents rely on. They revel in giving science this
> wimpiness that seem
> >> to applaud. Watch out for what you
> advocate. It can come back to haunt
> >> you.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
> >>
> >>> Science is not just about a careful
> and systematic approach to
> >>> expanding knowledge; it is also a way to share that goal
> with other
> >>> interested parties. That is why we develop academic fields and
> >>> subfields. One person cannot simply declare himself right;
> >>> positions are subject to peer review.
> >>> Scientists have been characterized
> (present, perfect, passive) as
> >>> "certain" in some previous posts, but I would assert the
> opposite--a
> >>> good scientist tends to be skeptical of all positions, perhaps
> >>> especially his/her own. Even when evidence seems
> overwhelming, as it
> >>> is for evolution and global warming, a good scientist
> presents those
> >>> as the best current explanation of the evidence, not as a
> final and
> >>> definitive answer. This may seem wimpy to some, but it is a
> >>> cornerstone of what good science is all about.
> >>> When someone wants to offer a new way of
> seeing things within the
> >>> academic fields, it is customary to present a Review of the
> >>> Literature in some form or another. Those who propose the
> new way of
> >>> seeing things are under the obligation to show that they have
> >>> reviewed the current literature and understand it before
> they offer
> >>> something new. That doesn't mean presenting the weaknesses
> of that
> >>> view, but presenting its strengths. The burden, as it should
> be, is
> >>> not on the status quo position, but on the person who is proposing
> >>> the new view to explain why it better accounts for the observed
> >>> facts.
> >>> I don't present this as a post to Brad;
> like many on the list, I
> >>> find discussions with Brad unpleasant and unproductive. But
> I think
> >>> it's important to assert ground rules that can make it
> possible for
> >>> us to discuss issues in a useful way.
> >>> It is helpful to know what most
> experts currently believe about a
> >>> topic. We should be able to post that without fear of attack.
> >>>
> >>> Craig
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/6/2010 9:51 PM, Brad Johnston wrote:
> >>>> Karl,
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I'm sorry you're angry but remember, YOU took it to the list
> >>> and YOU
> >>>
> >>>> are the person who is angry. And YOU are the person who
> >>> called me a
> >>>
> >>>> "troll", which is OK. That's what angry people do. No
> >>> problem.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> But as long as were here, let's let the list look at your
> >>> definition
> >>>
> >>>> and let them decide if it is what we (Karl and Brad) are
> >>> looking
> >>>
> >>>> for, which is the kind of definition you say "can be found in
> >>> any
> >>>
> >>>> decent grammar text".
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> These are your words exactly, from 02dec10. "My definition:
> >>> The past
> >>>
> >>>> perfect in English is a compound tense that combines the
> >>> primary
> >>>
> >>>> past tense with the perfect, which is a secondary tense
> >>> system. The
> >>>
> >>>> past perfect prototypicaly functions to locate an event prior
> >>> to a
> >>>
> >>>> second past event."
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I replied, (this is exact): "Don't be impatient. We're
> >>> getting
> >>>
> >>>> there. The question was, How do you define it? Tell me what
> >>> the past
> >>>
> >>>> perfect is." And you replied, "The past perfect functions to
> >>> locate
> >>>
> >>>> an event prior to a second past event". So if I say, "I went
> >>> to the
> >>>
> >>>> store yesterday and bought potatoes", the past perfect
> >>> functions to
> >>>
> >>>> locate the prior event, going to the store, from the second
> >>> event,
> >>>
> >>>> buying the potatoes? 'Zat how it works? Or do you want to
> >>> adjust
> >>>
> >>>> your definition? And you replied, "No, I don't want to change
> >>> it. It
> >>>
> >>>> is correct." So, ATEG, here is the definition: "The past
> >>> perfect
> >>>
> >>>> functions to locate an event prior to a second past event".
> >>> Is it
> >>>
> >>>> good or is it not-so-good? Is it what we're looking for? or
> >>> can we
> >>>
> >>>> do better? (Remember, we're talking about Teaching Grammar.
> >>> That's
> >>>
> >>>> what this is all about.)
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> .brad.06dec10.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> ------------------------- *From:* Karl Hagen
> >>> <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>
> >>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] *Sent:* Mon, December 6, 2010
> >>>
> >>>> 8:39:21 PM *Subject:* Re: common irregular verbs
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Pot, meet kettle. Everyone else on the list agrees with
> >>> Eduard. For
> >>>
> >>>> my money, the real arrogance is in thinking that you are the
> >>> only
> >>>
> >>>> one who knows the truth about the perfect.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Further, my discussion about the perfect with you was off the
> >>> list,
> >>>
> >>>> and you have just misrepresented what I told you in private
> >>> to the
> >>>
> >>>> entire list.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> For the record, I gave you a definition, and then I corrected
> >>> your
> >>>
> >>>> imprecise paraphrase of my definition. I did not back away
> >>> from it.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> I should have known that you were too stupid to understand
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>> distinction.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Also, I stand by my use of the perfect in my last message to
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>>> list. It's Standard English, and the only thing you
> >>> demonstrate by
> >>>
> >>>> trying to ridicule it is your complete ineptitude as a judge
> >>> of
> >>>
> >>>> English grammar.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Once again you have demonstrated why you deserve to be
> >>> shunned, and I
> >>>
> >>>> deeply regret my folly in writing to you.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> This will be my last message to you. I am adding you back to
> >>> my idiot
> >>>
> >>>> filter.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> >>> web
> >>>
> >>>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> >>> and
> >>>
> >>>> select "Join or leave the list"
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> >>> interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select
> >>> "Join or leave the list"
> >>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web interface
> >> at:
> >>
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html>> and select "Join
> or leave the list"
> >>
> >> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> >>
> >
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's
> web interface at:
> >
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html> and select "Join
> or leave the list"
> >
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
> interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/