good science?

[ryan at mbcf.stjude.org]

In article <950503125653_105367633 at aol.com>, EdRegis at aol.com writes:
> 
> "Known"?  Are you *kidding*?  To "know" something means that what you know is
> true, not merely that you believe it or that some evidence exists for it, or
> that it's probable.  How can a guy like you, who says that everything is
> uncertain and corrigible, sit there and tell me that this stuff is "known"?
>  On the contrary, it's only what you molecular biologists believe for five
> minutes until the next view comes along. Hah!

Hi Ed,

I'm  a little surprised at the persistence of this thread: I thought Ted
Diener's posting nicely resolved the dispute. 

The problem I have with the insistence that scientific evidence gives us
"certainty" or a 100% confidence level is that this position implies that no
further evidence need be considered, the jury is in, the case is closed. This
position, when applied to decisions based on empirical evidence, is at best
very unwise since as-yet unknown evidence may later change the decision. It
reminds me a little of the official who proposed in the 1800's that the patent
office be closed since everything had already been invented.

Will the sun rise tomorrow? Very probably; in fact I am highly confident that
it will. Am I "certain"? No: I'll need to see the evidence first. 
Best regards,
Kevin.
-- 
--
       	==========================================
	Kevin W. Ryan
	Department of Virology & Molecular Biology
	St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
	Memphis, Tennessee 38101-0318, U.S.A.
	
	phone: (901) 522-0411
	fax:   (901) 523-2622
	Internet: ryan at mbcf.stjude.org
	==========================================