Stephen Jay Gould's Definition of Fact and Theory: An Analysis

Gould's Response to Creationist Arguments

 Questions to be answered How does Stephen Jay Gould define fact? Theory? How does Gould deal with creationist arguments against his ideas, or distortions of his ideas? Does Gould “sit on the fence” and see all perspectives as equally valid, or does he take a stance? Does that mean we should we say Gould is “biased”? Why or why not? Is Gould's article credible? Why or why not?  While Sharyl Attkisson already pointed out how scientific research can be fabricated, research that is performed by chemical companies and other corporations themselves should particularly raise questions. Why? How does the expression "follow the money" relate to the events outlined in "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare"? What is the precautionary principle? Does the EPA follow it? Does Health Canada's PMRA follow it? Why do you think this is the case? Is the article “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare” credible? Why or why not?  How does the issue of chemical regulation relate to critical thinking? Do you think most people are aware of the limits of chemical regulations, and are armed with the skills to critically analyze the issue?