OK, this backwoods brother will bite.

I tend to agree with Brother Bear's assessment about use of the term
unpredictable. The term does seem to have multi-conceptual use. As an excuse
to not "Scientifically" explore a pattern or phenomenon I would substitute the
concept of "Objectively Unmeasurable". When something cannot be reduced to a
number in an equation or a figure on a graph it is often deemed unworthy of
"Proper Scientific Research". I feel the key word in the last sentence is
"reduce", a concept among Unitary Scientist often considered "Sin" or "Fightin'
Words".

I'm not sure where this discussion began Bear, but it reminds me of defending my
Masters thesis against a panel of die hard, femanist, objective, reductionists.
Oops, my wife will kill me for that one, but it was a traumatic experience. One
lone, younger, male nurse practioner student against all those old........ I
digress. They are all respected friends and know how I like to tease them about
their horror when I presented a Unitary based position to my arguments that none
were prepared to discuss. I passed and survived well for the experience. Back
on topic. When arguments about statistical concepts errupt we usually end up
trying to defend the Unitary perspective. I took the opposite approach and
presented my position from the standpoint that they were using the out-dated
concepts of a paternalistic system that bases worth on objective measurement
with the admitted inability to measure significant phenomena. Without being
condescending I presented an integrated approach
that allowed acknowledgment of the unmeasurable and value to all pattern
manifestations, measureable and unmeasurable. A few of you may have seen my
model back in 1999? at convention.

So, I guess my question would be this. With this discussion are we defending
the Unitary position or exploring the use of statistical concept within the
SUHB?


Any takers?

GURU


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]