Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] BLU's SEO

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:38:01PM -0400, Richard Pieri wrote:
> >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. 

Then medicine is not a science either... they've been relying on
correlation since the beginning.  Ask your doctor about atypical

And in fact physics is no different, except that typically the margin
of error can be much smaller.  This has, however, led to things being
labeled laws of physics in the past which were later revealed to be
wrong.  So I guess physics isn't a science either.  Drawing your
argument out to its extreme conclusion:  There is no such thing as

> > Sociology is considered to be a science by academics everywhere;
> This statement is patently false. 

It isn't.  I did not say ALL academics everywhere.  

> Some of the experimental physicists at LNS say that the theoretical
> physicists at LNS aren't scientists. 

Ain't elitism grand?  Regardless, it conforms to many of the
definitions used by the overwhelming majority of people who use the
word "science" -- that makes it science.  That's how language works.

Derek D. Martin   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /