Well, as much I would like to concurr, I don't think, we can go with this, mainly because we can neither say what the truth is nor what the best method is to find out/understand what's going on. Beyond all criticism of a or "the scientific method" I don't think we can go to "all things are equal" - just see the recent debate about creationism. So I don't think we can divorce "science" from the method for doing it and the basic philosophical framework. Refutation of Popper or Feyerabend or not. We should acknowledge that "science" is a certain way to obtain certain types of knowledge - not more (the best or whatever) and not less. Maybe that wasn't the level Bill wanted to take this - if he commented more about modelling before measuring or the other way round or maybe just start from observations - I think there is room for all. The answer to these questions depends more on the maturity of the theory. If there is well developed theory, there is no excuse for ignoring it. Cheers, Joerg
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Bill Silvert Sent: Thu 3/9/2006 15:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Hamerstrom science" (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) Nonsense. Science involves understanding what is going on, and some arbitrary definition of "scientific method" is more often a hinderance than a help. Remember what Einstein said - Nature is subtle but not malicious (Raffiniert is der Herrgott, aber Bösehaft ist er nicht). We have to be clever to unravel these secrets. If we get at the truth we are doing science. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm McCallum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:13 AM Subject: Re: "Hamerstrom science" (deliberate non-use of statistical analysis) > Good science is a falicy. Either its science following the scientific = > method or its not science. Period. > I agree with most of the rest of what you said. > =20 > Malcolm L. McCallum
