On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Gerald_A_Levy wrote: > > It's a statistical issue. > As Rieu [5284] suggested, this doesn't really confront the issue I > raised. To begin with, this is not most fundamentally a > "statistical issue" -- rather, it is an analytical issue. Yes, it's an analytical issue -- and the analytical apparatus required must be statistical/probabilistic. What I'm opposing is that idea that when we're interested in some magnitude M, either it's "measurable" (implicitly: exactly measurable) or it's not (the attempt to find a measure is misguided, pointless). The area in between these extremes (where all scientific measurement lies) is statistical. Allin.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT