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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to