Alan (who I never suspected of being a ruminant)
ruminated:

> I've been sitting here reading BEE-L and watching people dispute
> what others report that they saw, and what they think they saw.

Are you sure of what you thought you saw when watching
others describe what they said they saw?  :)

> 4. What we think we see is largely influenced by what we have
>    heard and seen previously.   What we have heard and seen is
>    often irrelevant to the current situation, misunderstood,
>    or simply fanciful speculation.

The above appears to pre-suppose that no one is capable of
making an objective observation or measurement.  If so, it
comes uncomfortably close to creeping relativism.  If everyone
is partly right, and no one is objective, this would mean that
nothing is "true", nothing "false", and everything debatable,
or worse yet, irresolvable.  If so, this means that science
itself does not even exist, and this afternoon I must go into
town and find out where they hide the unemployment office.

But there's a simple solution to the problem that would be 100%
compatible with Alan's view.  Observations are one thing, but
conclusions drawn from those same observations are another.
I'd submit:

  When presented with an model or conclusion, one
  should insist on evidence that it can predict
  (or agree with) something other than the data
  upon which the model/conclusion is based.


(This message brought to you by the
Council for a Better Day After Tomorrow)

                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::