Mszlazak wrote:
>>Yeah, the tiles of his textbooks are very scientific oriented (sarcasm).
>>I find this one particularly amusing: /Dogs that Know When Their Owners
>>are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals/
>>
>
>Thank you for providing a first hand account of bias. Is this an example of
>"bias of ascertainment"?
>
You obviuosly don't know what the term means.
>
>
>Did you even bother to read the book?
>
>>I have no problem if you believe that and with all honesty I can respect
>>those beliefs, but please don't try to pass them for real science.
>>
>
>I never said I did or didn't believe in these powers. So why is doing
>experiments with dogs not the business of science?
>
Did you read it? What a joke.
>
>
>Also, why don't you give us your rendition of what "real science" is beyond
>"science follows a method..." My grandmother "follows a method" when she's
>bakes apple pies as well. Furthermore, what's this "method" suppose to do? At
>least, what do you believe it accomplishes?
>
Before science there was Natural Philosophy. The rise of the scientific
method, thje concepts of validity and independent corroboration became
the foundations of what was later called "sciens" = a way to know or
knowledge. following a recipe which is a method is not science. Of
course she can bake a pie following the scentific method.
>
>
>>Science follows a method, if the scientific method cannot be applied to
>>the subject at hand it doesn't mean the results are not valid, but it
>>means that results cannot be validated scientifically. There are science
>>subjects that do not follow the method either due to their descriptive
>>nature (e.g. anatomy, for the most part).
>>
>
>Don't forget Astronomy, Evolutionary Biology, Epidemiology, etc... According to
>you all unscientific?
>
Agreed for the most part if you look at specific models. You are not
adding new knowledge to a controversy that has been around for so many
years. But Astronomy does folow the scentific method for many of their
studies, so does Evolutionary Biology, and Epidemiology. you are
probably confusing the scientific method with empiricims and the concept
of the controlled observation .... two different things. Not all
scoiences are empirical. ;-)
>>I bet peer review journals have not accepted articles like these before.
>>
I have peer reviewed quite a few articles. Some of them risible. Some of
them very good science, others very poor. And like in any field, if your
article gets rejectedd by a first tier journal, move to a second tier >
third tier > fourth tier. Or you can always pay to get it published ...
like some "books"
>
>Thanks. E-mail the bibliography.
>
>>
>
>OK, thanks for finally agreeing with me.
>
I am not sure of that
>
>
Not interested in continuing this JTK style sophism. A couple of
bibliographic references will be emailed to you as soon as I go to my
office. Lets not polute any more this newsgroups with out of topic
discussions. As i mentioned to you in a private email, we can continue
the debate by email
