Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology
From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- In reply to: Steve Marcus: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:01:32 GMT
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> says in
news:mAhJd.23009$EG1.20665@lakeread04:
>> What I said was provided there was decent sampling. What you
>> are in essense is that if you believe one thing, no amount of
>> sampling or no increases in sampling would ever convince you
>> that your belief is wrong. By definition that is looking at
>> science from a religious or creationist point of view. And if
>> you believe that why should anyone here discuss anything with
>> you. 'Fuzzy' is an excuse. Had you countered with gee, 'the
>> sample is never adequate or I have found few to no studies'
>> that were unbiased in the sampling, and begun a debate about
>> weaknesses in sample. But your basic statement is that no
>> amount of science that indicates something does not exist is
>> satisfactory to you, ever. That is called religion.
>>
>>
> Now you're beginning to finally get a handle on Stevens. I call
> it "defending his cherished beliefs." He is so wrong on this
> that it's hilarious. He keeps ignoring the difference between
> "the absence of any evidence that X causes Y is an indication
> that X does not cause Y" and "the absence of evidence that X
> causes Y does not prove that X does not cause Y." He is doing
> that intentionally.
It does seem he is actively promoting some kind of denial.
Decent scholars can disagree on the rigorousness of evidence, in fact
I would say it is a responsibility of acedemicians to critique the
rigorous of evidence. However to set a position of beleif that no
amount of evidence is ever convincing to alter a point of view is
a bit astounding. I don't think it's hilarious, its pitiful.
-- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ____Groups_____ Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/ ____Sites_____ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
- Next message: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Previous message: Steve Marcus: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- In reply to: Steve Marcus: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Meaning of Zero and All, Application to archaeology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|