[Phys-L] Re: Piaget & Dewey: Down for the Count? - PART 1

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

maybe in Physics -- not necessarily in SS, Psychology , nutrition, etc.
  too many variables.  the counter example may be very specific while
other parts of the theory may be still valid.

bc, who wonders if the ist should be substituted for the is.

Jack Uretsky wrote:
> Hi all-
>         In reponse to:
>
> > "[Metzenberg's (undated #2)] is an interesting article, but I'm not
> > sure that I see why one piece of contrary research should throw out
> > all of Piaget's theory.  Scientific method would dictate that we
> > theorize, experiment, replicate and revise. Where does the
> > all-or-nothing stance of Metzenberg come from? I fear it comes from
> > ideology and belief, and not from any type of scientific approach to
> > the issue. Do look at the essay. The document is an opinion piece,
> > and not scholarly look at the issue."
>
>
>         "Ein gegenbespiel ist wort ein tausend bespielen is, as I
> understand it, a cardinal principle of science."
>                                         Regards,
>                                                 Jack
>
> --
> "Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
>                 General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
>                 just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l