[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano and Colleagues
C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Thu Apr 21 14:15:49 CDT 2011
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
Sent: Thu 21/04/2011 01:52
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano and Colleagues
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.
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.
>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
> 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.
>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.
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe