Re: virus: science's mememic place (was: Sexuality)
Wed, 18 Sep 1996 21:52:42 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Martin Traynor wrote:

> On 17 Sep 96 at 12:45, ken sartor wrote:

> > Another difference is that much of science can be verified or
> > disproved by individuals that are sufficiently motivated. Raw
> > data is readily obtainable...
> And is tested by using the scientific method. Once again, you must
> accept the tenets before you can proceed. Your argument seems to be
> 1) The scientific evidence that is available convinces me that
> science works
> 2) Because science works, scientific evidence is acceptable
> Circular.

As far as I know, science works to the extent that:
1) "This experiment directly contradicts that hypothesis/theory."
[Proof by contradiction.]
2) "This experiment provides strong evidence that major deviations
from this hypothesis/theory are false." [Proof by statistical

Science, in this view, provides a formalism for allowing consensus on
which tests have been conducted, and how well they were conducted.
Scientific evidence, then, is evidence collected within this formalism.

Of course, I am defining when science works in terms of mathematical

/ Kenneth Boyd