Newsgroups: alt.fan.cecil-adams,alt.usage.english,sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: WARNING Popperesque Paradigm shift approaches
Message-ID: <jqbE2HwCv.Aq5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <misraelE27EIG.G1v@netcom.com> <58rtn4$6r4@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> <5902a4$ltl@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu> <59156s$c97@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 07:19:43 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com

In article <59156s$c97@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
John M. Lawler <jlawler@qbert.rs.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>To rebraid a thread, such political posturing is part of what (I
>understand as what) Feyerabend was talking about, as being the real
>stuff of scientific practice.

>>Null hypothesis is at least as meaningful a term as "analytic language." 
>
>I find it impossible to disagree with this statement, in any sense.
>But I also find it tautological.  Meaningful to whom?  In what context?
>Not to mention the intimations of quantification and comparison of
>"meaningfulness"; how does one compare terms that are never used outside
>a technical field with ones that have made it into popular mythology?

Mary lamb self ate cajole instinct edgy hypotenuse.


After all, why should I succumb to the political posturing of those who
arrogate the establishment of norms as to the correct use of words?
-- 
<J Q B>

