Re: Moorad's assumed timeline

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
Date: Thu May 20 2004 - 14:37:34 EDT

On Thu, 20 May 2004 14:09:20 -0400 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
writes:
> <snip>
>
> Moorad, I can argue as strongly as anyone that physics is
> "harder" than
> other sciences. But this doesn't mean that those other sciences
> aren't
> sciences at all or that they can't tell us anything about the past.
> You
> have tried to make such a case several times in the past but it just
> won't
> work. As a physicist I appeal to you to give it up.
>
> Shalom
> George
>

If I recall correctly, Moorad has also argued that _mechanical_
measurements produce/are required for science. Does this mean that
scoring a rating scale using the old IBM sheets and reader (I think they
were discontinued in the late '70s) was scientific, whereas hand scoring
was unscientific? Objectivity, the ideal standard, is not equivalent to
mechanism. But I don't know what can change his commitments.
Dave
Received on Thu May 20 14:40:39 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 20 2004 - 14:40:42 EDT