Jim F.
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 11:53:19 -0600 Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> writes:
>
>
> Miles Jackson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Daniel Davies wrote:
> > Anybody who thinks that
> > scientists digilently throw out an elegant theory just because
> some
> > data contradicts it needs to put down the Popper and actually talk
> to
> > some practicing scientists.
> >
>
> I no longer remember the title or author of a very interesting
> article
> that gives substance to MIles's observation. It was written by a
> prominent biologist, and dealt in general with the ways in which
> actual
> scientists handle "information." The core anecdote involved a paper
> of
> his own written years before on some experimentation which
> contradicted
> current theory in the field. The journal to which he submitted the
> article rejected it. Some years later, the conclusions of his
> article
> were demonstrated to be true. His observation: the journal editor
> was
> completely correct in rejecting the article. The experiment, at the
> time
> it was conducted, would have been of no use, and in fact would
> probably
> have slowed up progress in the field. Information is at best
> useless,
> and often harmful, without a theoretical framework.
>
> Carrol
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.