Faulty Reasoning?

I am finding this debate very interesting, and I will continue to evaluate the various sources of information that are being presented. I would like to reiterate one point from my previous post, the one that prompted Brian to state I am "leading us down a dangerous road" if I want to consider case study evidence as being at least as credible as "controlled" studies. Please consider that what has been considered "traditional" science was not delivered from on high. By devising rigidly controlled situations and then meticulously measuring what happens in them we are distorting the real world and in many cases trying to answer questions that have little relevance in the real world. I am not suggesting we should ignore evidence from traditional scientific studies; however, please read Evelyn Fox Keller's Reflections on Gender and Science for another point of view that challenges Brian's definition of what is good and faulty evidence in science. I am standing on my position that there is no such phenomenon as total objectivity, and we are really dealing with whose subjective evidence we want to accept.

Replies:

Re: Faulty Reasoning?, by Brian G., 2/15/00 Re: Faulty Reasoning?, by Dr. D, 2/16/00 Re: Faulty Reasoning?, by Robert P. O'Brien, Ph.D., 2/17/00

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.