>To a very great degree, we see what we're looking for, and what we're
>prepared to accept.  This isn't an absolute, of course, or there'd never
>be any change, but it -is- very strong.
 
        Philosophers of science try to frame this question by
distinguishing between ontology and epistemology.  Ontology is the
theory of the world is a material thing, unfettered by bias.  It is
the study of every real existence, whether or not humanity can observe
it.  Epistemology is the theory that describes the limit of knowledge of
the ontological world.  This theory therefore incorporates human bias.
Many scientists, if not all, start with an implicit epistemology when
studying the ontological world.  This implicit epistemology drives
what parts of the ontological world that is studied and how those
results are then used.  Often, scientists try to pretend that they
are just "telling it like it it".  They are trying to pretend that this
implicit epistemology does not exist.  This kind of thinking is around
today.  Look at the claims by the people working on the Human Genome
Project, for example.  The point is, we need to carefully assess
the claims of science, and not take any findings on faith.
 
Cheers,
 
Robert Guralnick | Museum of Paleontology | University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720 | [log in to unmask] | (510) 642-9696