Jon Pike wrote:
Tetractys wrote:
Jon Pike wrote:

... "proof" ... means quantified, measured
results.

Not necessarily. ... Even mathematical proofs
often require years or even decades of
discussion and peer review ...

... Roger N. Clark posted a bunch of very wide
ranging statements based on his 'tests.' ... he used
his claim to having been an editor for a scientific
journal for many years as a trump card, rather than
actually answer any of the questions I was asking.

So, I have no qualms about holding someone using
such tactics to such a standard, especially when
they're making such wide-ranging claims about
totally unsubjective, unartistic matters.

You're making two claims here. First, that your
insistence on a definition of "proof" stems from the
use of argument from authority by your counterpart.
If that is true, then your theoretical basis is wholly
dependent upon how your opponent presents his
ideas. In your own language, your "standard" depends
upon Clark's "tactics." I would say this shows you
have no standard at all, but simply an emotional
reaction. Secondly, you are claiming that the discussion
revolves around purely quantifiable "unartistic"
matters. Isn't that the nature of the debate? You
are assuming your conclusion.

... I asked earlier for an example of a "science"
that doesn't use quantified and non-subjective results.
The only suggestion so far has been clearly shown to
-not- be science. Although methodical, and probably
very useful, it's not science. If you've got another
example for me, I'd be glad to hear it.

Again, you either misunderstand or misstate the nature
of the debate. Nobody is looking for a non-quantified
science. We are exploring the nature of quantifiable
data upon a visual perceptive art. But I will deal with
that question in a moment. First, my comments regarding
the nature of science did not negate the value of hard
data. Conclusions and theory go beyond data into
interpretation, the nature of what you glibly call "proof"
and even political concerns. One might easily "prove"
that A is greater than B. One might not so easily conclude
that because of this fact, A has greater import to the
topic than B.

Very clear examples demonstrating this principle are
available from daily newspapers involving causality
in medicine. Does cigarette usage cause cancer?
Does asbestos cause great harm? Do silicone implants
cause autoimmune diseases? Did Agent Orange cause
great harm? Does electricity cause birth defects? Do
cell phones cause brain tumors? In many of these
cases, what you would call clear "scientific" data
exist on one side or the other. But the ultimate value
of that data on decisions made concerning future
medical, social and legal action might depend on
considerations beyond the data.

Now, if you want an example of a non-quantified
science, these exist all around you. Early theories
about nuclear fission were unquantified. Early quantum
theories were not quantified. The state of cosmology
now contains many areas that are unquantifiable. In
these cases, theory always leads quantification.
In biology, exploration and observation often precedes
quantification, and in taxonomy, quantified "proof" is
a non-sequitur. Anthropological descriptions of kinship
relationships do not require proof at all, but simply
delineation of existing conditions.

There are sciences which require rigid proof, such
as mathematics, and there are those which do not.
What you call the "science" underlying the art of
photography serves a higher esthetic purpose.
("Higher" is not used here in a judgmental manner,
but in a hierarchical manner, much like astronomers
call the outer planets "superior.") The "proofs" and
data and observations made are meaningless in ipsum.

Conclusions drawn at the level of raw data with no
regard to the higher level of judgment required for
esthetic comparison are suspect, as they show no
regard for the ultimate purpose of the technique.

This is comparable to a pathologist in a hospital
examining tissue samples for a surgeon from a patient
on the operating table two floors above, and on
the basis of his count of the number of malignant
cells in the sample deciding the course of treatment.
No one can dispute the validity of his count, and
his count does "prove" the presence of cancer.
These are "true" facts. But if he stays in the path
lab, but also insists on prescribing treatment there-
from, he will soon find his services unneeded by
those surgeons with access to the medical history
and current condition of the entire patient.

Thus it is with your definitions of "science" and
"proof" that not only shift depending upon to whom
you are talking, but are also limited to a very
narrow and low level of relevance.