Darned if I can remember what Brit said it a long while back but it was
something to the effect that "there is science and their is faith and
between the two I can grasp the universe" There are some things men are not
meant to understand and perhaps LDD is one of them.

As to the 'science' of medicine, I have heard it referred to as the Medical
Arts. Different people react differently to medical procedures and the
physicians operate, perhaps, on averages, on how previous patients have
responded. Wife just underwent major surgery and the doc was right on with
all of his predictions save a minor one. One can make a good argument for
seeing medicine as a science but there are still very large and unknown
aspects and for these understanding is more of an art then an established
dogma.

Some may claim that using averages is in some way scientific as it deals
with statistics. Perhaps. Although as I learned in a time series class from
the rather accomplished prof who taught it, it is sometimes a matter of
opinion as to whether an observed series is a moving average or an
autoregressive function. It's all a matter of how you see the series.
Another prof teaching another stats class (Lordy I took 5 of them) advocated
the use of the bi-occular imact assessment. And as we students dutifully
scribbled his words as holy writ, he smiled. "How is it done?" we asked.
Again he smiled and said, "Hold the two graphs up side by side. Close one
eye and squint with the other. Than reverse procedure. As long as you can
justify one outcome over the other you are covered."

As for Kuhn and Popper and all the rest - the reading for me was dreary and
dismal. Whoever it was that called economics the dismal science could
expand his definition.

-k

"Arch" wrote in message
...
Science is great, but not holy. I'm with Dave. I gave up and washed my
hands of that soapy LDD science, except for joshing Leif, long ago. I'll
sit by and await the results of those with a more inquiring mind and the
time to use or waste it. A chance observation isn't a scientific
experiment in which a theory is already held (sometimes too tightly) in
mind.

I think it's ok to use LDD or not to use it in whatever uncontrolled
methods we slobs (not you, Dave) mess around with. We feel no guilt for
not glimpsing the larger picture and take no blame for the descent of
man.

Empirically, Arch
***********************************************
p.s. I'm just kidding around in ignorance, but I have read some of the
ideas of Thomas Kuhn and others about the history and current concepts
of what science really is and scientists really are. For me, they are a
comfortable rebuttal to those who don't count medicine or social work
..or woodturning as science. A.