> :: Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs,
> :: definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a 
> scientific
> :: field, the less likely the research findings are to be 
> true.


> ...If you accept that there is no such thing as absolute 
> certainty, (Heidelberg was it?)

If you pressed me, I'd say no. But who can tell for sure?

I think the point he is making is that increased freedoms in 
asking the actual question leads to a greater chance that 
the answers are wrong. ie where the method of study and the 
definitions and accepted results that define success and 
failure are tightly constrained the answers are more likely 
to be correct than when the opposite is the case and each 
researcher is free to establish their own guidelines.

In one of the other papers I cited (one of the two wannabees 
I think) someone suggests that society accepts being fed 
incorrect results if the subject is important enough (or was 
that unimportant enough?). AFAIR it was 'important enough' 
which seems the opposite of what I'd expect. In skimming I 
may have missed his point.



        Russell

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist