Interpretation of the Facts of Science
A number of things stem from the definition of a theory given in my previous article (that is currently in the article
section of our website) that I would like to bring out here. The first is that a theory is always to be differentiated from
the facts of observation. If a theory is that which coordinates or imposes unity upon the facts, the theory must be
something other than the facts. Here are the facts of observation. They are brought together and we introduce a
theory, a mental concept that helps us to relate and correlate the facts as we see them. A theory is thus concerned
with the interpretation of facts, and is not to be equated with the facts themselves.
It isn’t uncommon in science for the same set of facts to be interpretable by a number of rival theories. The facts are
not different; they are not usually disputed. But how are we to interpret them? You may have scientist “A” who
comes along and says, “Well, this is my theory – this is my manner of interpreting the facts” – and then scientist “B”
says, “No, I don’t see it quite that way, I think, on the contrary, that it is this way and that way”; and so you have
competing theories based upon exactly the same facts.
The correlation or relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer is a good illustration that is of current
interest. Now, what are the facts? Well, the facts are that people, who smoke heavily, especially if they have a long
history of heavy smoking, have a much higher chance of contracting lung cancer. This is the fact, and nobody
disputes it. But what about the interpretation? The accepted interpretation is that cigarette smoking causes lung
cancer. Now let me be quite clear that this is not the fact. The fact of observation is that people who smoke heavily
are much more likely to get lung cancer than those who do not. We take a theoretical step when we say, “Cigarette
smoking causes lung cancer”. There is a rival theory, very strongly supported by cigarette manufacturers naturally
enough, which says, “Oh no! We accept the facts, but you have got your theory wrong. The correct theory or
interpretation is that those people who smoke heavily do so because of some physiological or psychological need
which also makes them prone to lung cancer. There is no causal connection between the smoking and the cancer.
There is some other factor ‘X’, that causes a man both to smoke heavily and to be prone to lung cancer.” We may
smile, and reject that idea as most medical authorities do, but there are some very intelligent people who subscribe
to it, and no careful scientist will rule it out of court. You see there are two quite different theories based upon the
same facts and both purport to explain the facts.
Theory, then, must be differentiated from the facts of observation. The facts can stay the same for centuries on end.
They may be added to, new information may come along, but (providing they were carefully observed in the first
instance) they are not going to change; but the interpretations of the facts, as the history of science testifies,
change rather frequently!
More will be said on the other two factors in upcoming articles. Again, this will all be tied into ghost theory once we
set the appropriate background and foundation.
Mark Stewart
Director of Research & Development
PSI Paranormal Scientific Investigators
Creation7@verizon.net