On Nov 30, 2:15 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > aruzinsky.... > FYI , Einseele is fairly well educated when it comes to > linguistics..... you, on the other hand, do not appear to be all that > knowledgeble of linguistics , at all..... a little courtesy on your > part might be in order....
A. Einseele has repeatedly demonstrated a low IQ therefore his education is irrelevant. B. If I were very knowledgeable about linguistics, I wouldn't have posed the subject as a question. C. I referred to specific papers that I do not regard as science, or, at least not good science. > On another front... statistics is usually a certain sign or indicatior > of a "Soft Science".... Most "hard empirical Sciences" strive to > obtain a single fixed result for any given experiment... In the aforementioned papers, seems to me that probabilistic phenomena were treated as deterministic. Bad science or not science, you sort it out. > I mean, > taking into account and accomodation for variables imposed by the > limitations of experimental instruments or by the limitations of the > "theoretical method".... > But, soft sciences depend on statistical ranges..... e.g. 25% of > respondents sustain this view....etc.... > But, not always. For example, spontaneous fission of a radioactive isotope is treated as probabilistic. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemol...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
