AS I'm probably the only philosopher of science on the list, I'll field
this one.
 
[log in to unmask] insightfully writes:
>
>      I have no particular investment in the Dance Theory.  It is a nice
>      picture, but what matters is "is it true"?
 
Where true usually means "evidenced by the best tests we can put forward".
 
>
>      The tenor of the writings I've seen seems to be to prove or
>      demonstrate the validity of a strongly held belief.
 
I take "prove", "demonstrate" and "Validity"
 all to be synonyms of "truth".
 
 
         That is
>      proponents of the theory design experiments to prove their belief and
>      explain away the arguments of the opponents.
 
Of course, lack of success carries a lesson too.  If your experimental
designs continue to fail, you might just give up.
 
At the same time the
>      anti Dance Theory people seem to design their experiments to disprove
>      the theory.
 
Ditto
 
 
Is there no work being done by people who not only claim
>      objectivity, but demonstrate it.
 
In fact, most science is researched by people who are deeply committed to
thier theories.  What matters is that you are objective as to how you
produce your evidence.  You don't, for instance, slander your opponent,
or fail his/her grad students, etc.
 
The major testo of objectivity in science is the replicatibility of
experiments.  That is, your experiment that confirms your theiry must be
performed by anyone, believer or doubter, with the same results.
 
 It seems
to me that the search for
>      truth is not served by two opposing sides, but by seeking what is
>      true, whether we believe it or not.
>
Why we probably all have our doubts in the wake of the OJ simpson thing,
the law system is based on the adversarial system because it does tend to
produce the truth.  That is, two well meaning individuals, who are both
deeply motivated by their commitment to their theory, will accomplish
more oppopsed to eachother, than if they both were just objective in
motive.
 
 
Philip Kitcher's:  The advancement of science (1993)  is a good source on
these matters.
 
hope this helps
 --
------------oooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo-------------
Phil Veldhuis           | If I must be a fool, as all those who reason
Winnipeg. MB, Canada    | or believe any thing certainly are, my follies
[log in to unmask] | shall at least be natural and agreeable.
                                                David Hume (1739)