<HTML>Litz -
I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Litz wrote:
> Is not objectivity the cornerstone of accurate scientific method?
Not really. Objectivity cannot be attained by any human being. We are all subjective entities. What matters to the scientific method is the debate and testing of hypotheses (each one subjectively proposed and subjectively tested) against evidence. Gradually, a consensus emerges, as verified (or not) by the evidence.
Has this debate not already been "flawed" by a lack
> of objectivity as evidenced from the disputed written line?
No idea what this means.
> Are you really going to teach/illustrate proper scientific
> method in this manner, or have you not instead just
> demonstrated that very thing you stand against... improper
> scientific method?
No idea what this means either. What manner? How have I demonstrated that which I condemn? Is organizing a debate a "scientific" endeavor? I would consider it an administrative endeavor.
Would any true scientist go ahead and
> conduct the experiment if the basic hypothesis itself is
> flawed?
Come again?
Can the experiment go on anyway if one fixes the
> flaw in the basic hypothesis?
Eh?
Just questions that I think
> any objective scientist would ponder. Good luck with the
> difficult situation you have now been presented.
Thanks for the good wishes.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
