i've also been trying to put forth the idea that scientific endeavor doesn't always have to bring forth new predictions in order for it to be significant, since there are other avenues of interest such as the understanding one might achieve from a new viewpoint.
regards, tim

• This approach is philosophy - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 21:08 UTC
  • probably so - sagefr0g - September 30, 2003 - 21:50 UTC
    • No way - harvey1 - September 30, 2003 - 22:20 UTC
      • Philosophy defines science - sfnative - September 30, 2003 - 23:00 UTC
        • It depends on what you mean - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:26 UTC
      • prediction is a key element of - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 01:47 UTC
        • Free will is an empirical fact - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 12:18 UTC
          • those bounds though - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 14:46 UTC
            • No- finite bounds - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 15:30 UTC
              • again my bad - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:56 UTC
                • Apologies not needed - yanniru - October 1, 2003 - 18:48 UTC
                  • zeno's arrow wasn't - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 00:05 UTC
                    • Yes - yanniru - October 2, 2003 - 03:59 UTC
                      • this scenerio - sagefr0g - October 2, 2003 - 21:25 UTC
        • re: prediction - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:10 UTC
          • clarification - harvey1 - October 1, 2003 - 15:11 UTC
          • point well taken with respect to - sagefr0g - October 1, 2003 - 16:53 UTC