> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:43 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Myers-Briggs > > On 5/6/06, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > > I see a glaring logical error. The idea that *only* science can > > minimize > > > self-deception and identify non-existent causes cannot be falsified. > > > > I don't get it, couldn't you falsify the idea by comming up with some > > other method that minimizes > > self-deception and identifies non-existent causes? > > > No, because the "other method" wouldn't be scientific, by definition. > That's what happens when one argues from one's conclusions.
I don't see how it works this way. Let me propose a defiantly non-scientific method for predicting the weather 2 months in advance. It is "ask Jimmy." Let's assume, for reasons unknown, that Jimmy has an uncanny ability to predict the local weather two months in advance. We find that his prediction of rainfall, snow, wind direction and speed, and temperature range for two months in the future matches the accuracy of the Weather Bureau's forecast for the next day. We don't know how it works, but we can prove, through scientific methodology, that "ask Jimmy" is an accurate means of predicting weather 2 months in advance. This clearly becomes problematic when we are dealing with questions that are not subject to empirical verification. Fundamental questions of what is right or wrong, for example, cannot be determined scientifically or logically. But, once we establish axioms, then we can bring are analytical tools to bear by asking questions that can be empirically verified...such as "what are the results of this action?" Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
