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 --- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::