good science?

[ncel]

Ed,
	I hesitate to continue here arguments on the merits or demerits 
of "philosophy of science" edicts because, interesting and entertaining 
as this may be, it removes us pretty far from our true subject, virology. 
Surely, there are more appropriate discussion groups for this.
	I must take issue, however, with your claim that a "vast number 
of things ... science surely does know as matters of certainty." 
Consider, for example, the following four almost randomly chosen cases:
	1. You believe that the "heliocentric hypothesis" has been proven 
when, in fact, it has been disproven (or, in Popper's terminology, 
falsified). Remember that the Copernican worldview states that the sun is 
in the center of the universe (thus "heliocentric") whereas, in our 
modern view, our sun is a rather insignificant star among countless 
others, at the edge of one of innumerable galaxies --- which is a far 
more serious blow to man's ego than was the change from the ptolemaic to 
the heliocentric worldview.
	2. Until about 1900, physicists considered the laws of Newtonian 
physics as, in your words, a "matter of certainty" and, had you lived at 
that time, you (and probably I) would undoubtedly have agreed with them. 
I don't have to remind you what Einstein has done to Newtonian physics! 
Are we sure that what we believe now is "a matter of certainty"? Are we 
closer to knowing the most basic physical laws regarding the "stuff" of 
the universe? I doubt it. Will string theory lead to Nirwana or will it 
be chaos concepts, or a totally new idea? Remember also, that the 
identity of more than 90% of the universe's mass is still unaccounted for.
	3. Closer to my own field: Until about 15 years ago, every 
biochem. student learned as a matter of fact that all enzymes are 
proteins and, indeed, no reason seemed to exist to question this 
"certainty." Until, of course, Cech and Altman et al. discovered RNA 
enzymes (ribozymes) --- another falsification of a universally accepted 
"certainty."
	4. Still closer: "Must we really believe it's 'unproven' that DNA
contains the genetic material?" DNA does not contain the genetic 
material; it *is* one of two presently known genetic materials, the other 
being RNA. Will there be others? It has been speculated that, early in 
precellular evolution, genetic information may have been encoded in 
simpler, nonnucleic acid molecules. Whether this was so is presently a 
moot question, but there is at least that possibility.
	I could go on and on. All this is well known and does not in the
least detract from the imposing edifice of modern science, which I 
believe to be *the* monumental human achievement of the last 300 
years. On the contrary, it is, at least in part, exactly the fact that 
all scientific "truths" are more or less tentative, and thus 
*challengeable*, that science, in contrast to other human endeavors, 
has yielded a body of almost universally accepted "truths" (Popper 
would say, truths that have survived numerous attempts at 
falsification). This is why, as practicing scientists, we truly 
stand on our predecessors' shoulders and don't start with each 
new generation (or new "school") always again at square one, as 
is the case with philosophy and art, for example.
	I do agree with you, though, that Popper, not having been a 
practicing scientist himself, is far too rigid and misrepresents 
the method of scientific inquiry. His tenet that a scientist 
starts with a hypothesis and then tries to falsify it, is 
patently wrong (and your example of Howard Temin's work is well taken). I 
think Peter Medawar said it best: "Scientific reasoning is a constant 
interplay or interaction between hypotheses and the logical expectations 
they give rise to: There is a restless to-and-fro motion of thought, the 
formulation and reformulation of hypotheses, until we arrive at a 
hypothesis which, to the best of our prevailing knowledge, will 
satisfactorily meet the case." Notice: he says "will .. meet 
the case," not "is true" or "is correct."
	Also, I agree with you that Feyerabend, that irrational 
firebrand, is not worth wasting time on. But watch out: His 
(and others') "postmodernism" claims, among other equally 
preposterous claims, that the findings of science are 
different, depending on who is doing the experimentation. 
This pseudoscience hokum has attracted a vast antiscience 
following, whose tenets are already echoing in the halls of 
Congress and may well further erode the support of science.
	By the way, your accusation that I am "practicing theology 
of science" precipitated an enormous chuckle in me. I have 
been accused of a number of things, but never of being a 
theologian! My friends and colleagues, who know me best, 
laughed even louder.
	Clearly, you have it upside-down: Certainty (aside from 
death and taxes) can only be found in theology, provided 
one accepts as fact the writings on which this "certainty" 
is based. I, for one, prefer science with its uncertainty, 
but also refreshing openness for new ideas. If you cannot 
handle uncertainty, though, I am afraid you are stuck with 
theology.
	Enough "philosophy" for now and back to the lab! Keep up 
the good works.
Ted
tdiener at asrr.arsusda.gov