<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Collective curiosity?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/collective-curiosity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/collective-curiosity/</link>
	<description>&#34;The extra-ordinary lies within the curve of normality&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:23:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rense Nieuwenhuis</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/collective-curiosity/comment-page-1/#comment-1564</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rense Nieuwenhuis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=375#comment-1564</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Huh? Did I say something about experiments? 

I came closest to that when I wrote about testable hypotheses and the relation between theory and empiricism. Indeed, in contrast with (the common interpretation of) experiments, only all conceivable covariates can be held constant. 

But that&#039;s a different story, I would say. That would relate to a discussion on how to observe reliably, not to my statement that I thought that simulation models were purely theoretical without the possibility to deal with observations.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh? Did I say something about experiments? </p>
<p>I came closest to that when I wrote about testable hypotheses and the relation between theory and empiricism. Indeed, in contrast with (the common interpretation of) experiments, only all conceivable covariates can be held constant. </p>
<p>But that&#8217;s a different story, I would say. That would relate to a discussion on how to observe reliably, not to my statement that I thought that simulation models were purely theoretical without the possibility to deal with observations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: inti Suarez</title>
		<link>http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/collective-curiosity/comment-page-1/#comment-1563</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[inti Suarez]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:17:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/?p=375#comment-1563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey Rens

All what you describe here is not very popperian... no hard science here at all, but correlations in between mathematical constructs and observations... don&#039;t you think that it is a bridge too far to talk here about experiments? I mean, I would... but I thought that you were more strict in this issue :-) Cheers, I.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Rens</p>
<p>All what you describe here is not very popperian&#8230; no hard science here at all, but correlations in between mathematical constructs and observations&#8230; don&#8217;t you think that it is a bridge too far to talk here about experiments? I mean, I would&#8230; but I thought that you were more strict in this issue <img src="http://www.rensenieuwenhuis.nl/wp-includes/images/smilies/simple-smile.png" alt=":-)" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;" /> Cheers, I.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
