<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comet dust looks like asteroid dust</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/01/26/comet-dust-looks-like-asteroid-dust/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/01/26/comet-dust-looks-like-asteroid-dust/</link>
	<description>The blog of John D. Cook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:42:11 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CogitoErgoCogitoSum</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/01/26/comet-dust-looks-like-asteroid-dust/comment-page-1/#comment-36316</link>
		<dc:creator>CogitoErgoCogitoSum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/01/26/comet-dust-looks-like-asteroid-dust/#comment-36316</guid>
		<description>Science is supposed to be falsifiable, repeatable, etc.  Otherwise it counts as mere hypothesis, and not as theory.  Many so-called theories adopted in science to date dont meet the requirements.  And many others rely on imprecise data.  Consistency does not imply validity.  Why is it in statistics we use results to draw conclusions about the theory?  Isnt that a case of Affirming the Consequence fallacy being adopted and integrated and applied in empirical reasoning as though it were an accepted standard?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Science is supposed to be falsifiable, repeatable, etc.  Otherwise it counts as mere hypothesis, and not as theory.  Many so-called theories adopted in science to date dont meet the requirements.  And many others rely on imprecise data.  Consistency does not imply validity.  Why is it in statistics we use results to draw conclusions about the theory?  Isnt that a case of Affirming the Consequence fallacy being adopted and integrated and applied in empirical reasoning as though it were an accepted standard?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CogitoErgoCogitoSum</title>
		<link>http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/01/26/comet-dust-looks-like-asteroid-dust/comment-page-1/#comment-36315</link>
		<dc:creator>CogitoErgoCogitoSum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/01/26/comet-dust-looks-like-asteroid-dust/#comment-36315</guid>
		<description>Indeed. Our scientists cant even get the moon right... and yet they purport to know anything about suns or stars or galaxies at a distance.  Big bang?  All their theories have the added benefit to them of being completely unverifiable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed. Our scientists cant even get the moon right&#8230; and yet they purport to know anything about suns or stars or galaxies at a distance.  Big bang?  All their theories have the added benefit to them of being completely unverifiable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.297 seconds -->

