NP Witt List (was something Pynchon-related at some point, maybe)

[Mark Smith]

Andrew wrote:

>  I mean when it comes to resolving any question as to the
> significance of data clearly the data itself cannot imply a particular
> (one might say `natural') significance. That's a petitio principii.
> The data needs to be judged by a criterion which is formulated
> independent of the actual readings or measurements obtained. Selecting
> such a criterion is *not a scientific judgement*.

I understand your point here, but think it borders on sophistry.  I
agree that the formulation of a criterion upon which to judge "random"
data is not a scientific endeavour.  The process always involves some
subjectivity, as it is bound to.  However, the criteria may be selected
*in the spirit of science*, or not. If the criteria are selected in the
spirit of religious dogma, then they are not selected in the spirit of
science.  Then the theory which is later formulated from that data
becomes iron-clad, self-contained, static and unfalsifiable. 
-- 
Beechnut Review	http://www.traverse.com/beechnut
"Go bind thou up yon dangling apricocks,/Which, like unruly children,
make their sire/Stoop with oppression of their prodigal weight."