Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Derek Martin wrote: > You're missing a key qualifier: reproducable *within an acceptable > margin of error*. All empirical data has some margin of error as our You are correct. I took it to be understood. This is one of the reasons why experiments must not only be repeatable but repeated. This is also why rigorous controls are necessary. > phenomena is highly imperfect, and relies on statistical modeling to > establish correlation, rather than exact measurement. That's bad science for a simple reason: correlation does not imply causation. Science requires quantifiable evidence. Probabilities can help an experimenter narrow down where to look but they aren't the evidence necessary to prove the hypothesis. You don't get a bye in real science if you can't solve these problems and prove your hypotheses. > Statistics isn't science; applying it to describe a phenomena IS. Almost. Using statistics to describe phenomena is a /tool/ of science. All forms of math are tools of science. > Sociology is considered to be a science by academics everywhere; it's This statement is patently false. Sociology is not considered to be a science by the scientists at the Laboratory for Nuclear Science at MIT where I work. Some of the experimental physicists at LNS say that the theoretical physicists at LNS aren't scientists. "They're just mathematicians." That's when they're being polite about it. I don't dare ask for opinions about psychology and sociology. I like my job. As for the Bachelor of Science degrees? That's because there are only two kinds of baccalaureate degrees in the US: Arts and Science. Sociology and psychology are too focused for most Liberal Arts requirements. That leaves only one option. Anyway, stick with the softies' definitions if you will. But let me finish with this: if you're going to accept a hard-core marketing person's definition of "marketing" then it's only fair that you accept a hard-core science person's definition of "science". -- Rich P.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |