[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A little off subject...Re: Sue had no wishbone...
George and all:
The little symbols some of you may see (*#^?) are due to my having written
my responses in RTF or rich text format -- some computers apparently can't
read RTF so I will try to remember to revert to old school e-mail for now.
=) But should I send something in the future and you see those symbols,
that's what's going on. I thought most machines out there could accomodate
"Yes, and [George's definition is] >deliberately< circular to boot!
"Scientific meaning" is in the eye
of the beholder."
Well, I would disagree with you, George, because in any science we're trying
to pose answerable questions about the physical universe. If we're not
doing that, not following the scientific method, than I would argue we are
not saying, publishing, etc., something "scientifically meaningful." I'm
sure you'll disagree, but can you really defend using a circular definition
to define what separates science from pseudoscience? What does it matter,
then, if I argue that sauropods could fly because I wish it so? After all,
that is "scientifically meaningful" in my mind, and you said it was all in
the eye of the beholder. What, indeed, would be point of studying any of
this stuff? Who makes the decision of what is "scientifically meaningful"
and how is that applied?
"I'm well aware of the usual reasons given for desiring peer
review, and I don't think they hold water."
Then what do you propose we do instead? How do you test the scientific
relevance of something if you only have the circular definition you provide?
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com