From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Mon Mar 10 1997 - 00:15:36 MST
lcrocker@calweb.com (Lee Daniel Crocker) writes:
>I will concede that historical facts--if they are accurate--are "data"
>of the one-bit kind. But one must refrain from using them as "evidence"
>of something other than their mere existence, unless you are rigorous
>about your methods of selecting sample sets and measuring statistical
>significance of outcomes. Otherwise, one can just pick the pattern and
>then find historical facts to fit it. Proper science doesn't work that
>way: your mind suggests patterns, but then you must do the measurements
>cleanly if you want to prove that the pattern means something.
Was Darwin's theory that man evolved from simpler organisms "proper
science"? Can you measure the statistical significance of its outcomes?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | | "Don't blame me. I voted pcm@rahul.net | http://www.rahul.net/pcm | for Kodos." - Homer Simpson pcm@quote.com | http://www.quote.com |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:15 MST