forum 8: week of 5 March: tests and evidence
This whole week was a little confusing for me, but I'm not sure why. Hopefully next week's reading will clarify things for me a bit. Something about Staley's style made the paper difficult to read.
Thomas, exactly what part of Staley's argument was most confusing for you? Or, is it not possible for you to pinpoint one thing that was most confusing this week? The reason for asking those questions is because if what confused you this week directly relates to next week's reading, then I will try to accommodate for your confusion in my presentation next Tuesday.
I also found this reading to be rather confusing. I don't know how significant this part of the reading is, but I was confused by the idea of a degree of security in forming inferences. Staley & Cobb said that researchers can have secure inferences without having to state how secure they are. I don't quite understand why this is, it seems to weaken the strength of internalism. If you could clarify this a bit more that would be helpful!
Andrea, security is a concept that is very much related to Fisher's work but is not something that Fisher (explicitly) addressed. I will see if I can say at least a few words about security, in the context of Fisher's reading. Thanks for your comment! To everyone else: keep these comments coming! My suggestion to all of you is to start looking ahead to next week's reading (Fisher) in light of the concepts discussed in this week's reading.