The experience I had with neurologists: whatever they say is based most of the time in a former report (practically don't work by themselves but follow) and then they ask for analysis trying to be lucky enough so they'll show what they want them to show, a bit like a limited unexperimented fisherman would draw his net anywhere, wishing to get tuna fish by chance. For what I know, in science, you're supposed to observe and then draw conclusions. Whatever will or goal may distort the results of any experience.
Who might understand what is defined by unexplainable neuronal deficits, however they may additionally appear "specified" in time, Fred Romano? Tragically, Charcot failed to explain, did not even describe the venous changes centering the huge wetterwinkel lesion he was the first to come across in 1866.
In a scientific discipline you cannot ignore existing knowledge. Already your current understanding which has led to ask you a certain question (to throw your fishernet into the sea) and the terms you are using to phrase your question (the meshes of your net) are an expression of prior assumptions and beliefs. This is unavoidable and has led to the predominant Bayesian way of reasoning in science. Even if your catch looks like a tuna, you wouldn't easily believe that its a tuna if you had caught the fish in the arctic sea. If you had caught the fish in the artic sea you would ask for very strong hints (such as a genetic analysis or so) to convince you that it is really a tuna that swam all the way to arctic waters. In other regions with a very high natural occurence of tuna, is fish that looks like a tuna is probably one.
Christian Sprenger Isn't it a lazy way, assuming things will repeat, so you don't have to compromise in expressing a personal opinion on specific data, that may contradict the Great Fossil untouchable opinion? As a generality, I think things never repeat exactly and this precisely this more or less where they don't repeat that is interesting to investigate. And scientific observation of tuna fish can't be based on squid, even if they both live in the sea and can be fished with the same fisherman net.
Christian Sprenger, your face leaves little doubt about your identity, irrespective of the terms used to phrase questions about you. No fisherman will ask for such very strong hints as a genetic analysis on being asked what a fish he caught.
Neurology yet stipulates UBO numbers and dysfunction times for defining what not described drawings of Carswell and Charcot precisely characterized.
Fred Romano, was Aristotle wrong in saying things are recognized by their immanent forms - which latter alone had a lasting nature?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Zoology
- Ichthyology
- Vertebrates
- Fish