At 2:22 PM -0600 11/15/00, Jim Guinee wrote:
>> >Both. Mine, theirs. Data? Let's see. Eight years and about 4,000
>> >students: journals, transformations, conversations, project
>> >presentations, small talk, body language, observations, self-evaluations,
>> >miracles, letters, sometimes totally unscientific but insightful
>> >"studies."
>>
>> In other words, a very large quantity of anecdotes.
>>
>> * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
>> * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
>> * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
>
>Does that make this information less valid, simply because it hasn't been
>collected scientifically?
Yes.
That's the whole point of science.
>Is it possible that sometimes in our pursuit to be scientific we
>automatically
>nullify any possible truth that is based on some other source?
Naive observations can suggest topics for scientific study.
That does not therefore qualify those observations as scientific data.
'Truth' is a logical and theological construct, not a scientific one.
In sum, there's a difference between formulating an hypothesis on the basis
of a naive observation, and basing a conclusion on the same.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
