joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
>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
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060809/63449be1/attachment.htm>