Re: [OT]: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"

From: Don Pearce (donald_at_pearce.uk.com)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:58:14 GMT

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:48:04 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

>>Theory has been tested, and hence can be used to predict an outcome
>>reliably. Conjecture is what the bloke down the pub tells you.
>>
>Kevin's original stuff is clearly hypothesis, because he doesn't, AFAIK,
>have any opportunity to carry out any confirmatory tests (even if
>ethical tests could be devised in this context). But, since it's derived
>from Darwin and others, it is not 'conjecture', which needs no 'prior
>art' basis at all.

He certainly makes reference to Darwin, but I see no evidence that
anything he proposes is actually based on Darwin's work. His Darwinian
reference are more in the nature of analogy than anything else. So
conjecture is still a fair description.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Relevant Pages