Nick Gorham wrote:
Rob wrote:


Cheers Nick - you're quite right in the sense of Jim's post. My point
was that there are other methods, and anomalies within that method,
and reliance on observable phenomena (which that methods tends
towards) will end in tears.

Well I think its a central point of the method that for something to
exist it should be observable, either directly or through its effect on
other things.


'The' method can have a problem here. To cut a long story short are
'society's structures' observable? Of course, that method might deny
their existence because of difficulties in observation and 'proof'.
Similarly religion and power - difficult to get empirical purchase. But
just because you have difficulty measuring (and in these terms
observing), it doesn't mean they don't exist. These are methodological
issues - the logic you use to define the method. You are in a massive
majority. Your 'effect on other things' is significant, except I think
you've bundled it as something already known - an 'it' that can have an
effect.


I'd add that the good ol' Wiki is not always accurate - I've put a
couple of things up that have never been challenged or edited.
Frightening :-)

Rob

Its an odd think Wiki, I don't think its any less accurate than most
other sources, its just its inaccuracy is obvious, where most texts as
they have no means of being changed are assumed to be fixed in stone.
Its at least as accurate as any history book, it works on the basis of
the truth being what enough people agree it is :-).


Nature recently tested the accuracy of Wiki - found it little worse that
Britannica :-)

Rob