That's really the point of the scientific method, that when results are offered, they are considered observations which are seen to have a high likelihood of confirming a hypothesis - not a fact, not a dogma, certainly not a truth - a hypothesis.
On 10/9/06, Charles Brown <cbrown at michiganlegal.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hear, hear ! Andie.
>
> Your discussion clarifies a lot for me.
>
> Watson's central dogma is "no inheritance of acquired charaterisics " ? No
> LaMarckianism ?
>
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> andie nachgeborenen
>
> -clip-
>
>
> _Of course_ science, which is just the practice of
> scientists, is loaded chock full with prejudices, that
> is, views held without reflection because they are
> indoctrinated into scientists in college, grad school,
> and professional life, views which are not considered
> open to rational debate because anyone professing the
> contrary is simply dismissed as a crank or a nut or an
> ignoramus.
>
>
> CB: Yes, I've been calling them "a posteriori presumptions". "Presumption"
> here is, as in law, rebuttable, but not easily.
>
> However, most scientists don't do all the actual practice ( experiment and
> industry) ,have all the experiences (a posteriori as opposed to a priori)
> that underlie the dogmas/presumptions. They rely on reports from earlier
> scientists who carry out the direct testing practice.
>
> Yet, this is the human way: receiving communications from other humans not
> acting alone. We are highly social beings, not Robinson Crusoes. In this
> regard, science merely acts as humans have always acted. Newton stood on the
> shoulders of giants, and humans have always stood on the shoulders of their
> ancestors. The bee explained to the spider about making sweetness and
> light: honey dogma.
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>