Re: [APD] Theory vs. Actual

[william ruyle <inquartata at comcast_net>]

So Liz, what you're saying is these folk had to make some intuitive 
leaps in their interpretations?
Maybe even, god help us, use some abstract thought, since the myopia of 
bean-counting analysis
wasn't getting them anywhere? Interesting, if I have it correct....

Bill

Liz Wilhite wrote:

>On 9/23/05, Jerry Baker <jerry at bakerweb_biz> wrote:
>  
>
>>Liz Wilhite wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The whole point that most everyone else has been trying to make is that
>>>      
>>>
>>it
>>    
>>
>>>is not the data that is at issue, it's the interpretation.
>>>      
>>>
>>The interpretation comes from the data. Ever heard of GIGO (Garbage In,
>>Garbage Out)? Noisy data means a noisy result.
>>    
>>
>
> No, the interpretation doesn't come from the data. Ever heard of the Raman
>effect? Triplet-triplet annihilation? Singlet-triplet transitions? Effects
>of minor comformational changes on the absorption and emission properties of
>of large, flexible organic molecules? All of these were discovered from data
>that were imprecise at best. More precise data didn't improve the concepts
>or the understanding of the concepts one iota.
> Entire branches of knowledge in physics, chemistry and biology have been
>created by people who were bright and knew how to interpret imprecise data.
>Interpretation springs from the mind, and not all of them are created
>equally.
> Liz
> Liz
>_______________________________________________
>Aquatic-Plants mailing list
>Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
>http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants
>
>
>  
>
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants