On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Richard M wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Richard M wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
Which method is most like TMO Research?
(HINT: there are only two possible answers.)
Let's hope the answer isn't (a): "Here are the facts. What
conclusions
can we draw from them". That'd be "naive inductivism", no?
Only if it was not falsifiable.
I'm not sure I follow you. Perhaps this though: can we agree? It's
only a cartoon - but it provides no insight whatsoever into
"scientific method"?
(If your retreating from "verififability" to "falsifiabily" for your
demarcation between good science and bad science, I'm not sure that
concept will do the job you require. viz. let in only the good stuff
(stuff you like) and exclude the bad stuff (stuff that gets your goat)
I was referring to inductivism.
