THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: thames_sider who wrote (1036)	3/4/2002 10:16:11 AM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) of 21057

Well, Thames, thank you for the counterpoint arguments... They are more interesting than misrepresenting the author's credentials, shooting the messenger (me), slapping on the quick "psychobabble" label, ROTFLMAO's, tossing in Handey-isms, and firing off shotgun blasts in all other irrelevant directions. Scientific papers generally begin with a hypothesis, which is an "assumption." Evidence is then presented which may lead to acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis. I think Vitz's premise is eminently reasonable, and could be applied to either believers or non-believers. He has provided evidence and reached a conclusion. His conclusions are open to debate, which is the whole point. I think it serves a highly important purpose to stimulate thought and debate on the degree to which our claimed rationality is in fact the product of psychological forces and impulses within us.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next