>>>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.
>
I've got a good idea what the term bias means and now so do most of the readers
of this thread.
>>
>>
>>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.
>
What, the book was a joke or asking you to read it?
>>
>>
>>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.
Science is just a new name for "Natural philosophy" and there was a lot more
then than just "natural philosophy". In fact it was a minor aspect of human
culture.
> The rise of the scientific
>method, thje concepts of validity and independent corroboration became
No, that's a fairy tale, independent corroborations been around for thousands
of years.
>the foundations of what was later called "sciens" = a way to know or
>knowledge.
Yup, it's a way to stucture beliefs and belief systems. But, I don't know if
can get at the Truth. But, its not the only one, there are other ways to
stucture belief systems.
>following a recipe which is a method is not science.
Of course it is, but my gramma's recipe may not be.
>course she can bake a pie following the scentific method.
>
If controlled experiments/observations are science, then the psychic
experiments on dogs are science and have been repeated by others.
>>
>>
>>>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.
We all know that science is impotent on many things. Because of this it's
doubtful that it's methods will get at the ultimate truth about reality. Still,
it can be a useful tool on others and has given use both horrors and delights.
>>> 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. ;-)
>
No confusion here.
>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
Hey, the debates been over a few messages ago. You just veered us into another
realm.
