|
|
Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Mon, 01 May 1995 11:23:13 GMT
Phil A. Willems (paw@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:
>
> Nothing exists without an underlying set of assumptions
> which are untestable. But to continually draw attention to that
> fact is boring, leads nowhere, and ignores important differences
> between opposing viewpoints.
>
Well, it may be boring to the physicist, but the examination of sets
of untestable human assumptions just happens to be the very stuff of
anthropology.
Grist to the very mill, in fact.
So if y'all don't want your own particular untestable assumptions
subject to our RIGID scientific discipline: statistically analysed;
compared with every opposing viewpoint, agreeable viewpoint, and
any other viewpoint having nothing to do with anything whatsoever;
then every last important, trivial, wholly esoteric, and ultimately
utterly meaningless difference mapped, published as a PhD thesis in
the hope of getting tenure somewhere, and then finally if successful
included in the next poor hapless generation's fresher texts; AND I
must add subject to our unending Rhubarb Rhubarb Rhubarb over such
unbelievably fascinating cultural phenomena, why, y'all must be ONE
DANGED FOOL to be x-posting them to us here on this international
anthropological conference.
Now wouldn't y'all?
Y'all y'all . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|