From: retour@contactprospect.com   
      
   >> There is no order.   
      
   "David Mitchell"  a écrit dans le message de   
   news: pan.2007.02.05.22.21.25.102128@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   > Of course there is: with a finite number of experimenters and a finite   
   > amount of cash (and time) with which to experiment, there must be.   
      
   No, both hypothesis must be tested simultaneously, otherwise nothing is done   
   at all.   
      
   >> An experiment which discriminate the explanations must   
   >> be done.   
      
   > Doesn't that precisely contradict your previous sentence?   
      
   No.   
      
   >> An order implies a scale of values: first something serious or   
   >> "rational", then something crazy.   
      
   > Exactly.   
      
   So you put a label a priori on each type of explanation.  That can hardly be   
   called "rational".  That's called "prejudice" or "bigotry".  The scientific   
   method isn't at all what you advocate.   
      
   >> By that token, the second option is never   
   >> investigated, and the first one goes from failure to failure, which is   
   >> claimed to prove nothing, and leads to the sadly famous: "there is no   
   >> proof (and no investigation besides.)"   
      
   > It depends on how the experiments are constructed.  If there are   
   > falsifiable premises in the chain, they can be eliminated quickly; which   
   > is to everyone's benefit.   
      
   Every "serious and rational" premise will be taken, which will all be   
   falsified, going from failure to failure etc...   
      
   >> In the example of Kepler, he thought of a geometrical harmony, set up by   
   >> God.  His mathematical description of an orbit then became more likely   
   >> than the epicycles theory.   
      
   > It doesn't really matter where the inspiration comes from: it's the   
   > working out of the mathematics which determines the truth (with the   
   > obvious "emperical reality" caveats)   
      
   No, no "rational" reasoning provide inspiration of any sort.  Where the   
   inspiration comes from determines the whole efficiency of the method.   
   Mathematics without any hypothesis go nowhere.  The fact is, the greater   
   discoverers had a brimming imagination, overflowing up to craze.  The   
   today's diehard "rationalist" are ants on their shoulders.   
      
   --   
   ~~~~ clmasse on free F-country   
   Liberty, Equality, Profitability.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)