John M wrote:
> Breent
> your distortion of my words may come from my mindset of a 
> non-IndoEuropean mothertongue - in English.
> I wrote:
>  >".../by building further levels on unfounded
>  > assumptions - no matter how fit they may be > to a theory we favor...</
> you wrote:
>  >You imply that our theories are just a matter of "favor". <
> As I understand it has a different meaning. I imply nothing. I presume 
> we have a similar idea about 'scientific method': not  restricted to 
> reductionist model-views, yet the 'preaching' I got about it does not 
> rely to my text. I may 'favor' (i.e. like better than another one)  a 
> theory freely. An nth level of conclusions - based on an idea I may not 
> approve - may be a likeable formula, I keep my mind free enough. IMO it 
> does not 'fit' into MY 'scientific method', because the original startup 
> was an assumption on maybe shaky grounds. 

What's the difference between starting with an hypothesis and an assumption?  
Isn't that step one in the scientific method?

>I trust my sense of 
> 'scientific' logic because it landed to me 38 patent-approvals. 
> (=Pudding test).
> BM:
> "There's a difference between wishful speculation and informed 
> extrapolation... "
> The question is: what is the 'information' based on? If on a model-based 
> selective (statistical?) assumption, oops: calculative explanation, 
> and extrapolated into beyond-model areas, 

The whole point of a model is to extrapolate (and interpolate) to unobserved 
cases - otherwise science could just be a compendium of data.

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to