> If he did, he'd know that cats have this research-hypothesis-detection
> device which switches on an automatic contrariness unit whose function is
> to provide the precise opposite of the H1 you're seeking to establish
> (even when you arrange the experimental conditions in a way which
> simulates your expectation to be the opposite of H1).
> The cat is, in fact, a 4-legged H0 homing device. See the second quote.
accounts for about 98% of the variance in her qualitative
presentations of data concerning their behaviour.
It struck me after I went home for the day that this might be the case
(l'esprit de l'ordinateur!). Further, it would appear to prove the cat
to be an atheist of rather nasty disposition. But more importantly,
it would show the unfalsifiability of the whole thing, since we could
construe the cat's constructs based on any possible behaviour. Our
ability to make what looks like sense of the cat's behaviour by
invoking a theistic position (read "set of constructs") in no way
implies or refutes the existence of feline theology. With the
exception of some little waxy hairballs, is it impossible to infer
directly or otherwise what is between its ears. We can't, after all,
just ask him in the hope that he might tell us!
BTW, the post:
> >>>> HOW TO GIVE YOUR CAT A PILL by Peggy Althoff
will be appearing on my sister's fridge next weekend, in Times Roman
14-point font. Thanks!
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Travis "No-Mc"Gee () tgee@superior.carleton.ca ()
() () ()()()()
() () ()
() ()()()()()()()()()
"In science, the more we know the more extensive the
contact with nescience." -Spencer
<A><a href="199704-mailto:tgee@superior.carleton.ca">MAIL</A>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%