In Reply to: RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: posted by middleground on December 5, 2014 at 14:06:32:
Atkinson has a good handle on the situation. He understands the Duck Test. (When I hear the duck quack, I don't need some anonymous Internet asshole calling me delusional.)
Not all DBTs produce nulls. However, when they don't the "objectivists" ignore the results. They cry "fraud" and "experimental error". If you want to understand how this works, you can read Thomas Kuhn.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Tony Lauck 12/5/1418:46:23 12/5/14 (48)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Pat D 19:55:26 12/6/14 (11)
- Scientific method? - mkuller 12:16:37 12/7/14 (8)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 16:00:43 12/8/14 (7)
- RE: Scientific method? - Tony Lauck 18:40:40 12/8/14 (0)
- RE: Scientific method? - mkuller 16:44:52 12/8/14 (5)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 18:54:10 12/8/14 (4)
- RE: Scientific method? - mkuller 12:07:14 12/9/14 (3)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 20:07:13 12/9/14 (2)
- RE: Scientific method? - mkuller 20:11:39 12/9/14 (1)
- RE: Scientific method? - Pat D 20:38:40 12/9/14 (0)
- And yet... - E-Stat 08:41:40 12/7/14 (1)
- Novelty toy makers, not experimental scientists - Tony Lauck 15:19:26 12/7/14 (0)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - John Atkinson 09:20:36 12/6/14 (35)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Tony Lauck 10:45:15 12/6/14 (34)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - stehno 12:26:05 12/14/14 (2)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - Tony Lauck 13:27:16 12/14/14 (1)
- RE: I still haven't heard a satisfactory explanation: - stehno 14:41:13 12/14/14 (0)
- BTW - E-Stat 14:36:06 12/7/14 (30)
- RE: BTW - Pat D 19:28:44 12/8/14 (29)
- RE: BTW - E-Stat 08:18:58 12/9/14 (28)
- RE: BTW - Pat D 20:15:00 12/9/14 (27)
- Finally, an accurate amplifier... - mkuller 21:37:45 12/9/14 (23)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Pat D 13:50:13 12/10/14 (22)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Tony Lauck 21:19:51 12/11/14 (8)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Pat D 16:27:01 12/12/14 (7)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Tony Lauck 17:40:55 12/12/14 (6)
- RE: Finally, an accurate amplifier... - Pat D 18:41:54 12/12/14 (1)
- Oh, you "suggest"? That's so generous of you.... - carcass93 15:25:40 12/13/14 (0)
- Sorry - E-Stat 18:04:08 12/12/14 (3)
- The only one you mention... - mkuller 11:07:39 12/11/14 (12)
- RE: The only one you mention... - Tony Lauck 21:17:01 12/11/14 (1)
- I always... - mkuller 10:40:54 12/12/14 (0)
- Ditto - E-Stat 11:59:45 12/11/14 (9)
- Maybe PatD will tell us... - mkuller 12:25:01 12/11/14 (8)
- Perhaps accurate for those who listen to - E-Stat 12:34:55 12/11/14 (7)
- RE: Perhaps accurate for those who listen to - Pat D 16:33:03 12/12/14 (6)
- Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST...(nt) - mkuller 10:06:19 12/13/14 (4)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST...(nt) - Pat D 11:12:03 12/14/14 (3)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST... - mkuller 11:28:15 12/14/14 (2)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST... - Pat D 10:43:51 12/15/14 (0)
- RE: Wrong amp - we're talking about the 4B-SST... - lord addleford 12:13:17 12/14/14 (0)
- Thanks for ongoing humor! - E-Stat 16:48:15 12/12/14 (0)
- RE: BTW - E-Stat 20:37:09 12/9/14 (2)