Re: Mechanisms are Needed to Explain Cohen's Data

["Raymond A. Hoover" <rayhoover@HOTMAIL.COM>]

Since Dr. Cohen's work was a test of LNT, it is hard to see why a mechanism 

is needed to explain the results.  A mechanism to explain the results would 

be nice, but it is not necessary.



And I thought we were discussing Angles not angels dancing on the head of a 

pin?





>From: mark.hogue@SRS.GOV

>Reply-To: mark.hogue@SRS.GOV

>To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>Subject: Re: Mechanisms are Needed to Explain Cohen's Data

>Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 12:44:23 -0500

>

>Kai Kaletsch <info@eic.nu> wrote:

>

>The point is that the mechanism is all-important. Every observation

>must have an explanation, whether the observation is on an individual

>level

>or an aggregate level. If you are not looking for a mechanism, you are not

>doing science!

>===========================

>

>By this standard, Isaac Newton did not "do science" when he described and

>calculated the effects of gravity. However, he could have postulated

>angels (a hot topic on Radsafe) pulling masses together by flapping their

>wings, and been a better scientist by this measure.

>









_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/