Of course that's the meaning of faith-based science. On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I did not see that in the link suppkied. But supposing you are right and I > missed it, which is possible I gues, the nature of science is reluctance to > make categorical statements about causation. If you insist on them before > taking any action, then you eliminate among other things most of modern > medecine and astrophysics. > > On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Robert Munn <cfmuns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> the actual published report, once it was peer reviewed, said that there was >> not enough statistical evidence to link the two things together. >> >> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Dana wrote: >> >> > >> > I hate to interrupt when you two are having such fun but all the Times >> > article actually says is that the citation for the claim is from an >> article >> > that isn't peer-reviewed, right? Not that there is evidence against it. >> > >> > >> >> >> > >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:311083 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
