Martinsw1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rebecca, it is certainly not true that 'science'
> is whatever agrees with your opinion.

Did I say anything of the sort? It does seem to be your position, however, that anything which could be seen as falsifying your grand Theory of Everything is by definition pseudoscience.

It's
> laughable that you think you can definitively
> identify these animal symbols - you are falling
> into the same trap that you have set for others.
> And you then dress this up as some kind of
> established methodology called 'iconography'? Now
> who's the pseudoscientist?

Er - iconography IS an established methodology, and a very useful one with a wide range of applications. Have you honestly never heard of it? I'm flattered you'd think I thought it up, but you give me far too much credit. And what about the big square butt on that headless ibex?

> Science is the statistical analysis of
> measurements.

That is an astoundingly limited view of science. This explains a lot.

As there is no way to derive a
> numerical confidence estimate for your
> iconographic method, it falls under the same
> category as all your other 'facts', i.e. opinion.

The classification of the images is a non statistical question. Do you need to "derive a numerical confidence estimate" to tell you whether the car you're driving is a Volkswagen or a Porsche? Or do you judge according to the vehicle's attributes?

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you about that ibex with a big square butt. You know, the headless one? Thoughts?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Aug-19 07:05 by Rebecca Bradley.