Re: PSEUDO-SCIENCE ? (rambling but not long)

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 09:49 2/29/00 -0500, Barlow Newbolt wrote:
> .... some on
> the list are trying to point out is that in some  cases it is very
> difficult to point to some causative chain for the observed events with
> any degree of certainty.  The result is that we wind up with a lot of
> fancy statistics.

> ... These statistical arguments can be very useful if
> they are developed in an even-handed manner and intrepreted without
> bias.
>
> ... The experimenter becomes the drunk in the old story whose
> tag line is:  "He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost - for
> support rather than enlightenment."
> WBN
>
> Barlow Newbolt

This certainly hits a button with me.
  Here's a statistical pseudo definition of 'science' for example.
  "A learned field whose most senior positions are occupied in more
than 94% of paid posts by men."

In contrast here's a definition of 'physics'.
  "A learned field whose most senior positions are occupied in more than
96% of paid posts by men."

It follows that the biological sciences are somewhat deficient in
this respect.



brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK