> Could you tell us what you mean when you say science? And perhaps what you
> mean when you talk about good science? Finally, what do you mean by crap? I
> also extend this question to everyone else who has commented upon the
> anecdotal information dialogue.
It seems to me that Dale has consistently empasized the peer review and
verification (repeatability) processes and I agree as to their importance. On
the other hand, both the logical structure and conceptual overview (foundation
& scope) must be consistent, as well as any methodology used in experiments.
Lastly, while ideas are cheap (unless the reality is there at bottom, in which
case they may not have been cheap to come by), one gets to choose his / her own
peers, to a certain extent. Of course the best concepts and science stand on
their own, and outlive (and perhaps immortalize) their makers (they're always
collaborative, and the best ones are capable of changing the course of history
in significant ways).
> I would like to express my appreciation to Dale for being willing to keep
> on contributing patiently to this list in the face of some of the criticism
> he has received.
Are you kidding? This is how he keeps in shape.
> Victoria Mundy
> Univ. of Kentucky
Douglas M. Hinds, Director General
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command