Coherent is good, but an epithet we usually reserve for scientific theories more than science per se.
Michael Agar wrote: > Damned if I know. Clarity of an assertion about how the world works with > intent to revise against subsequent experience? > > Probably spent too much time in Vienna. > > Mike > > >>>> "Robert Holmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 07/12/08 5:31 PM >>> >>>> > Let me see if I've followed David's argument... science doesn't need math > and it doesn't need to possess any predictive power and - given the > cultural/individual specificity of metaphors - reproducibility seems kinda > optional. So exactly what does something need to make it science? > > Robert > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Prof David West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> As a human being, and as an anthropologist, I can make predictions and >> create predictive models based on a largely non-conscious understanding >> of culture. Such predictions are not based on mathematics (a >> mathematics of culture is pragmatically impossible at the moment). >> Predictive models do not a science make. >> >> davew >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
