t was collected was then organized and then the correct explanations would emerge out of the organized data (Ratzsch 18).
             As Ratzsch argues, this theory has serious holes in it. The fact that a scientist would want to examine a certain issue seems to be a presupposition in itself. If someone wants to study how pollution affects the air we breathe, then that person has already assumed that pollution has a negative impact on our environment. There is no way you can study something without bringing in at least some presuppositions. No one is going to just stumble across an issue and start to work on it. If this was the case Ratzch says, there would be no selection principles, and the information would be unrelated to each other.
             Another shortfall of this theory according to Ratzsch is the assumption that an explanation just magically appears from the data collected. The data itself can not dictate a particular theory. It may provide clues that a scientist may use in forming the theory but the data itself can in no way produce a theory (Ratzsch 19).
             The explanations for these questions were later hammered out according to Ratzsch, and these concepts are Traditional Conceptions.
             The first one was the explanation of Rationality. A scientist would test a theory by artificially setting up what supposedly would happen. If the experiment did not go as plan the regularity probably was not real.
             The next conception focused on the Empirical Element. Any claim that could not be empirically tested was not a part of a science. Science was only what the empirical data warranted, and it could make no pronouncements on these claims.
             The final conception was Objectivity. Objectivity was always maintained within science. Since what was real was permanent, and since nature was uniform, and result should be reproducible. This left no place for philosophical or religious predispositions to exert any influence on theory sele...