Nieft / Secola wrote:
>
> Hey Reggie

Hey :)

> ...Reggie do you notice that the way science corrects its errors
> is by doubting its own research conclusions, by making them
> concrete and reproducable?

Well, um.. don't mean to sound snotty here, but.. may I say... DUH!
Of course, that's supposed to be the way that it works.  It doesn't
always happen that way, but no one disputes that it is supposed to.

> ...The irony to me is that you use such an example to dis research
> in general, when it was research which uncovered the falsity of
> conclusions from earlier research.

I did no such thing.  I merely used the article, which I thought was
very interesting, as a reminder that support of a theory is not the
same as proof and that we should think twice before accepting a state-
ment as fact just because it was published in a journal.  I have the
highest regard for scientific research -- when it's done well -- but
I read a good number of such journal articles, and I'm constantly
amazed at the slop that passes for science these days.  Having
respect for science should never mean turning off your brain.

> ...Science is certainly not the be all and end all of human
> inquiry, but it is the best method of crap-detecting I can see
> out there.

I agree.

> PS. It is of very questionable legality to post whole articles without
> persmission from the author/publisher. I personally don't care, but you
> should probably be aware of that if you're not.

I took a calculated risk.  I had no luck getting in touch with the
author, but I think the chance that he would be upset is slim, since
he himself sent it to the list I got it from, and I gave him his due
credit.  But thanks for the tip anyway.

Reggie