Again, acting in my capacity as the Village Pragmatist, I would assert that science is the only procedure capable of producing lasting consensus. The other methods .... various forms of torture, mostly ... do not produce such enduring results. N
-----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 6:12 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: [New post] The Loud and Clear Message that the TED Controversy is Sending Douglas Roberts wrote at 04/04/2013 04:45 PM: > I was using "evidence" in the scientific sense, You say that as if everyone agrees on the scientific sense of the term, which of course they don't. Even reputable scientists disagree on what constitutes evidence. I know you're willing to insult anyone with whom you disagree. But the fact remains that standards of evidence differ depending on the context of the discussion, the domain of inquiry, etc. Evidence in, say, cosmology or evolution is very different from evidence in, say, biology or physics. And that's without leaping out into the softer sciences. -- =><= glen e. p. ropella Looked pretty horny if I do say ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
