Big Bang?

[John Doe]

Right. There's lots of "perspectives" on
UFOs-have-landed-and-abducted-hayseed-fuckheads-and-fucked-them-up-the-ass-with-probes...none
of which I can take seriously...but, heck..there they
are; those "perspectives"...damn...I gotta stop being
so close-minded...

--- jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> On 11/10/2005, at 11:15 PM, Cyrus wrote:
> 
> >>
>
http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
> (seems 
> >> like a reasonable overview, linked from the
> wikipedia entry on "the 
> >> scientific method")
> >
> >
> > Dharma Haven? Tibetan Medicine? Shambhala? And
> this guy has the nerve 
> > to write on science? Do you expect me to take this
> stuff seriously?
> 
> You asked if there were other perspectives on
> science and "the 
> scientific method". Clearly, there are. Whether or
> not you take them 
> seriously doesn't factor into it.
> 
> best
> 
> 
> On 09/10/2005, at 9:07 PM, Cyrus wrote:
> >
> >>> Does "Science", or your version of it, [...]
> >>
> >>
> >> MY version of it? What does that mean? Are there
> more than one? If it 
> >> follows the scientific method it's science, isn't
> it? Is there more 
> >> to it?
> >
> > Sure -- paradigm shifts, new scientific
> disciplines and methodologies, 
> > qualitative as well as quantitative approaches,
> the philosophy of 
> > science, ethics etc etc. There's a lot more to
> "Science" and its 
> > methodology nowadays than Beaker the Muppet.
> >
> >
>
http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
> (seems 
> > like a reasonable overview, linked from the
> wikipedia entry on "the 
> > scientific method")
> >
> > Pynchon's depictions of scientists (and scientists
> at work) are pretty 
> > negative on the whole -- Ben Franklin in M&D is
> another example. The 
> > new book will be interesting in this context.
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs