Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, ravi wrote:
>
> >
> > To address your argument: there are two points that can be offered to
> > counter it. The trivial counter-argument: the problem of induction
> > should give pause to any sort of absolutism. The substantive argument:
> > the softer the science the less autonomous the units under consideration
> > and less rigid the behavioural variance.
It's this rhetoric, "give pause to any sort of absolutism," that justifies Kelley's critique -- you are now arguing against a position that simply doesn't exist, and this kind of strawman argument pushes _my_ buttons.
Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> > Confidence factors gained from
> > limited studies and testing are less representative of individual
> > possibilities, I will submit (albeit without the data), without
> > knowledge of variance within, across individuals and populations,
> > histories, environmental factors (hence my questioning the ceteris
> > paribus claims of such studies), etc (there is also a third
> > methodological argument based on Bayesian vs other interpretations of
> > probability and statistical distributions, but I am nowhere near
> > competent to get into the details of that argument, though I am
> > convinced its a legitimate one from talking to those who know better. I
> > throw it in here in case someone more knowledgeable might wish to expand
> > on it).
>
> Science is messy and the results of scientific research are never
> absolute and definitive, as Woj pointed out in an earlier post. I don't
> see how this supports your position.
ravi here comes close to an argument analogous to the argument creationists use against evolution. One can find problems and unanswered questions in evolutionary science -- therefore evolution should be tossed overboard. One can find errors and unanswered questions in medical science; therefore medical science should be tossed over. But in each case there is nothing to substitute for the rejected practice.
Carrol