Re: Disparaging Popper

["philidor11" <philidor11@snet.net>]

<Criteria I suppose are always "arguable," but the criteria (or better yet
we should say data) are generally based on the amount of evidence from
experiment, observation, etc., that would be explained by the theory.  No
scientific theory is ever perfect, though, and that's what keeps science as
vigorous a discipline as it is.>

Hi Matt!
I hope you'll clarify this statement.  If the criteria for confirming a
hypothesis are 'based on the amount of evidence from experiment,
observation, etc., that would be explained...', then the limited data about
dinosaurs would put a major crimp in the ability to produce a publishable
hypothesis.
Also, wouldn't you have to specify the amount of data required  and the
amount of variation in the data available (having available only 350 kinds
of apples for analysis would limit your ability to generalize about fruit)
as part of these criteria?  This sounds like making the criteria applicable
to different situations would take a lot of work.
Thanks.