NP interpretations and "facts"

[jbor at bigpond.com]

On 09/10/2005 John Doe wrote:

> Wellllllllllllll....kinda sorta yeah...but the problem
> is, the range of interpretations that are
> "meaningfull" in a certain case can be great or very
> limited;and that basic diference matters a lot - it's
> one thing to interpret the meaning of a sarcastic
> remark, or a passage from Gilgamesh, it's quite
> another to Interpret the observation that EVERY SINGLE
> TIME anyone, anywhere, throws a stone up in the air
> within a uniform terrestrial level gravitational
> field, it ALWAYS comes down...

The same type of observation can be made about scientific hypotheses. 
There is enormous variation from one to another (e.g. the Big Bang 
theory). The way the variation is glossed over is a product of the 
language and rhetoric of "Science" (e.g. the "falsifiable hypothesis" 
conceit), not of any equivalency in terms of the hypothesis's "fact" or 
"truth" status vis à vis the observable universe.

best

>>
>> There are no facts, only interpretation.
>>
>> --Neitzsche

> very intelligent people
> like Derrida who nonetheless have NO feel or ability
> in physics think it's fine and dandy to treat such
> evaluations from observation as just more "text" -
> oh,- excuse me; I meant "Text" - and thousands of
> humanities people who simply CAN'T admit they have no
> clue and should not make pronouncements on such
> things, go right along with him...I can't understand
> such over the top egotism; but I do understand the
> easy smugness it must bring to Derrida worshippers to
> be able to relegate all science to the "domain of
> language" and/ or "textuality", ....I have met Derrida
> in person twice,and listened to him field questions
> from the audience, and this guy is a twit; he does the
> most obvious form of evasion : " oh- no no no no - you
> zimply dohn't uhnderstand my wurk "...apparently, his
> way of "interpreting" legitimate questions from bad
> ones is to not address the question fairly in the
> first place....I doubt Nietzsche had anything like
> this in mind when he wrote that, and I wish French
> Theory Heads would ponder that once in a while...