<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Amund Tveit's Blog - Latest Comments in The Rebirth of Confounding and Theory in Science?</title><link>http://amund.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://amund.disqus.com/the_rebirth_of_confounding_and_theory_in_science/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:46:36 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Rebirth of Confounding and Theory in Science?</title><link>http://amundblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/rebirth-of-confounding-and-theory-in.html#comment-1093229</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I was happy to read your comments on this "interesting" Wired article, that is more sad than interesting. Science and scientists are more and more often discredited and ridiculed, and now a respectable and popular magazine suggests that we can soon forget about science because there is something new is invented instead.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Bela Patkai</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:46:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Rebirth of Confounding and Theory in Science?</title><link>http://amundblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/rebirth-of-confounding-and-theory-in.html#comment-1085661</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree, and will also comment in more detail on my blog&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">joergkurtwegner</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:28:24 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>