[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano and Colleagues

[Steven Dapra]

April 20

         That's his real name:  Michael Ruse.

         See "Falsifiability, Consilience, and Systematics," in 
Systematic Zoology; 28(4):530-536; Jan. 1979.

         I also recommend "Should the History of Science Be Rated 
X?," by Stephen G. Brush; Science, 183(4130):1164-1172; March 22, 1974.

         Permit me to inform you that Karl Popper was not the 
ultimate authority on the veracity of a theory.  You, yourself, 
appear to be less than well-versed in the philosophy of science.

         To get back on track, I reiterate what I said below:  I 
rather doubt that you know more about health physics and epidemiology 
than does the ICRP.

         Are you related to anyone in the United States?  Your method 
of argumentation bears a striking resemblance to that of certain 
parties with whom I have had other run-ins.

Steven Dapra



At 05:14 AM 4/20/2011, you wrote:

>Point me to Michael Ruse (good name)
>Ill check it out.
>You obviously know little or nothing about the philosophy of Science.
>Chris
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Wed 20/04/2011 03:22
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
>Mangano and Colleagues
>
>April 19
>
>          There has been no "scientific argument" because you have not
>posted the text of your literary production.  We can't argue with thin air.
>
>          I rather doubt that you know more about health physics and
>epidemiology than does the ICRP.
>
>          You wrote, "In science, one reasearch [sic] result which
>falsifies a model is enough."  This is not so.  You have obviously
>never read anything by Michael Ruse.
>
>Steven Dapra
>
>
>
>At 04:54 AM 4/19/2011, you wrote:
> >I just copied the citations using the different methods for citing,
> >in case you needed them. What I dont see from you or anyone else is
> >any scientific argument about the issue. Why is that? Is it because
> >there is none. And if there is none, then it is a falsification of 
> your model.
> >Its all gone quiet over there except for one guy talking about
> >hormesis. I can deal with hormesis, but lets stay with this paper on
> >infant leukemia. If you cannot explain these findings, your ICRP
> >model is dead in the water.
> >I am not asking for a list of papers that support your model. In
> >science, one reasearch result which falsifies a model is enough.
> >Sincerely
> >Chris

[edit]