Thanks John.
If the right question is asked and understood, then the answer is readily
apparent if the data that confirms or denies it is accessible. In effect, the
answers are all out there, we need only craft the right question. Scientific
interpretation of data is but a process of question refinement and this can be
generalized to all forms of "interpretation." Contrary to the common idea that
interpretation is some posterior act.
When we have the answer, we tend to forget the paths that either failed or were
incomplete on our way to it.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info
On Mar 12, 2012, at 1:58 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Professor John Collier
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
> Durban 4041 South Africa
> T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292
> F: +27 (31) 260 3031
> email: [email protected]>>> On 2012/03/06 at 11:03 PM, in message
> <[email protected]>, Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I would say that the Mars lander computational analysis of data
> is "interpretation." It seems to me to be a further representation, although
> one filtered by a machine imbued with our intelligence. Interpretation would
> be the thing done by scientists on earth.
>
> As a former planetary scientist, I would agree in general with this, but I
> also experienced new data that pretty much implied directly (along with other
> well-known principles) that lunar differentiation had occurred. (Even then,
> scientists had to interpret the results, but they were clear as crystal
> relative to the question.) I relied on much less direct data (gravity
> evidence and some general principles of physics and geochemistry) to argue
> for the same conclusion. My potential paper was scooped, and I hadn't even
> graduated yet. Both Harvard and MIT people in the field found my paper "very
> interesting" but lost complete interest when I was retrospectively scooped by
> firmer evidence. The moral is that nothing in science beats direct evidence,
> even the most appealing hypothesis. Nonetheless, your book sound interesting.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
