Tabula rasa fallacy:
The myth that the true scientist starts by observing the facts without
any conceptual anticipations.

On May 21, 5:05 pm, Joseph Littleshoes wrote:

No intelligent person has ever claimed that scientists don't have any
"conceptual anticipations". In fact, "conceptual anticipations", in
the form of hypotheses, are the basis of most scientific work.

Additionally, scientists don't observe facts, they observe the results
of experiments and use the demonstrated evidence to form conclusions
about their hypotheses.

It doesn't matter how many times or how many ways you try to say it:
science is not based on belief. The foundation of science is the
scientific method, which works independent from any beliefs the
individual scientist may or may not have.

"Joseph Littleshoes" isp.com> wrote in message
news:4834B8C9.2020606@isp.com...

Straw man fallacy:
Joseph's implication that anybody at all who knows anything about science at
all believes this so-called "myth". In fact, it is only Joseph who makes
this claim in order to attack it. It's not a "myth". It's only Joseph's
fantasy.

In article <4834B8C9.2020606@isp.com>,
Joseph Littleshoes isp.com> wrote:

The true scientists I've known try like bloody hell to achieve that
ideal. Most of them are quite aware that they're no more than human,
however, and all too often fall short.

But it isn't for lack of trying.

Blessed be,
Baird

On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:43:39 -0700 (PDT), mika gmail.com> wrote:

Sure it is. It all breaks down to what people believe. Different
people have differing beliefs about many things in science.

She just told you that it doesn't matter how many times you say it is. And
yet, here you are, following the same ineffective strategy.

No scientist has ever claimed to have a 100%% understanding of everything.
That's a claim used exclusively by religious nutballs.

Baird Stafford wrote:

Its a Quote from the Theodorson & Theodorson "Dictionary of sociology"

Joseph Littleshoes isp.com>:

clever.

wiki (wiki?! LOL!) says:

Tabula rasa (Latin: blank slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world.

Generally proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favor the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behavior, and intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
(accessed 5/24/08)

the myth of 'objectivity' as an investigating subject and object.
the myth of the 'involved participant-observer", etc.

nocTifer

[M]:

dh@.:

not about base-level notions of how the world works. the zones
of cosmogenesis and metaphysics afford a level of diversity.

false, she usually has beliefs about the scientific method in
terms of its dynamics, utility, and reliability in expanding
applications. how she may resolve any religious differences
with the scientific data is her personal problem, and there
are surely doozies from which to choose.

hasn't been reached, isn't going to be reached any time soon.

On May 21, 10:43 pm, mika gmail.com> wrote: