Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Wed, 03 May 1995 03:46:12 GMT
In article <3o2vd0$oeo@lll-winken.llnl.gov>, William S. Lawson (lawson@ludwig.llnl.gov) writes:
>This is beginning to look like a deliberate provocation, but assuming it isn't:
>You might try studying cosmology as part of astronomy or physics. A poor
>anthropologist might well try to explain everything in terms of human culture
>and psychology, but there is more to reality than this. A good anthropologist
>would not make this mistake.
Anthropologists try to "explain everything in terms of human culture
and psychology"? In fact, or maybe as the idea that he might happens
to suit your silly argument.
Were you concerned to examine the facts, and please rest well assured
that we hold you quite free to do so at your own leisure, you might
well arrive as we do at the conclusion that all the anthropologist is
concerned to do is merely explain human culture itself.
All the rest is no more than ongoing debate over the reliability of
field observations and particular aspects of research method among
ourselves. Most noticably within the context of our pedagogy.
>Specifically, "speculations beyond what the data can support", is usually
>termed, "formulating a hypothesis". It is followed by testing that hypothesis,
>and must always be consistent with the known data.
> -- Bill Lawson
How does this method differ throughout all of science? Please don't
reply with your further hypothesis on what some "poor anthropologist"
might do, or not do, our whether you feel you are being deliberately
provoked.
Anyone at all setting themselves up to throw a tantrum in public can
come that caper . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He who refuses to qualify data is doomed to rant.
+61 97 53 3270
|