Scientific Fact versus Interpretation

I read your entire post, including the quotes you gave. What is the problem with me asking you to read an article you pretty much directly damned in your post?If you hadn't read it, or such papers then how can you criticize? I guess I'm not suggesting that you have to read it. But if you haven't and you won't, then I am suggesting you have to take back your assertions regarding what is contained therein. You asked HOW, those "technicalities" are the answer to YOUR question. I am sorry the answer is not easy, but you asked the question. And even saying that it was a rhetorical question doesn't help your case. In fact, it makes it worse.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

What's that saying? You can lead a horse to an article, but you can't make her read it? Or was that a jackass? I forget.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This is a point I tried to raise with Faith back in post #82 and a couple of follow up posts.In her OP she suggested one set of observations were wholly factual and the other interpretive, but essentially they were ALL interpretive. The methods of making the assignments (interpretations) were the same in both cases: refs to articles. Only Faith seemed to accept those cites as involving scientific reasoning, and the other set of cites as nothing but sheer speculation.This is why I have been trying to get her to read an article essentially identical to the second set of cites. Was science methodology used or not in the interpretation of dep environment.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)