PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Date:
Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:29:42 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
<<There is a very simple test to determine if a person
is proselytizing to you or attempting to teach you
about objective scientific truth: statements made by
proselytizers cannot be verified by empirical
observation.  Scientists sometimes disagree about
which theory best explains the empirical evidence,>>

It seems to me I remember from research classes I have
had that empirical evidence is strictly facts, as in:
of the X number of people in our trials y% of people
experienced/exhibited/reported the variable we were
looking for.  It does not provide causality, only
probability.  Granted, these were research classes for
the psychological sciences, but I would hope that the
other sciences would not presume to make such
conclusions without some way of "proving" causality.
We were also taught that theories could not be
"proved" only disproved or refined.  If this is not
true, someone please show me the empirical evidence
(hehe)
Jane

ATOM RSS1 RSS2