http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/273611
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> > > wrote: >> On the other hand, where I see things differently to you, >> is that I don't believe, as you say, that there are any *actual >> rules* that can be assigned to this thing we refer to as "the >> scientific method". > I don't understand you here. The method is a collection of rules. > That is pretty much all it is. The variables come in when we > apply them. You would think so, but when it comes down to it, what ARE those rules? I think folks have found that when they try to examine that idea close-up, the ground seems to open up on them alarmingly. I wonder what rules you have in mind?
