michael sylvester wrote: > > > If scientific findings represent flawless objectivity,why do need > replications?
No one of significance ever said that "scientific findings represent flawless objectivity." What they (should have) said is that the scientific approach is our best bet of finding out what is really going on in the world. Observation is still subject to all of the criticisms that were heaped upon it by Idealists from Plato on down to the present day (we make errors, we can be deceived, our predispositions sometimes overwhelm our senses, etc.). Replication helps us to catch some of those flaws. Science is not particularly efficient, and it is certainly not perfect. It is merely better than everything else we have tried. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
