"Wirt Atmar"  wrote
>
> What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that theorization,
hypothesis
> formation and wild-eyed speculation are what "don't count,"
not the forum
> per se. Being able to provide demonstrable, repeatable evidence that your
> ideas could be correct is what matters in science.
>
You have got to treat the philosophy of science you are taught in high
school with a bit of salt. That is not to say that it is wholly wrong, but
it is simplified.

For instance the behaviourists measured learning rates in rats trained to
press levers for rewards to to avoid electrical shocks, and they worked out
the voltage of shock and even the dimensions of the cage that caused optimal
learning. These experiments had very good repeatability. Eventually,
however, it was realised that though they were repeatable and rigorous, they
had very little relevance.

Ironically, when it was shown that rats take many trials to learn to press a
lever to avoid a shock, but if given flavoured food paired with
radioactivity (which causes nausea) they learn to avoid that flavour in a
single trial, there was great difficulty getting the work published. However
the evolutionary investigation of rat behaviour is far more fruitful than a
naive objective "lets look at repeatable phenomena" approach.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/10/04 6:18:22 AM