John M wrote:
> 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).
> "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.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at