I replied privately to Rena Papadopoulos's queston about evidence-based
research but the continuation of the thread prompts me to send along my
comments to the list.  (see below)  I have since discovered that
"evidence-based" has a technical stipulaltive definition.  That being so,
the logical point I attempt to make is off the mark,technically.  So I will
try another assertion.  The entire notion of "evidence-based" is a move
within pseudo-science.


Dear Rena,

Whatever the responses you get I would worry the point being made.  I really
believe such claims are inherently pseudo-scientific.

Conceptually, information and evidence and knowledge and evidence are
inexticably linked.  To the question, "Can you have knowledge without
evidence?", the answer is "no."  "Can you have knowledge without empirical
evidence?",   is a different question and the answer will vary depending on
your epistemological position or maybe even on the kind of person you are.
For what its worth my answer to the second question is "you betcha can."

-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
SIGNOFF SDOH

DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.

To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname

To post a message to all 1000+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.

For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]

To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to [log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST

To view the SDOH archives, go to: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html