Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82396)	6/21/2000 8:49:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

I don't recall anyone but CB relying on religious sources......

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82396)	6/21/2000 11:29:00 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

<<It would be wonderful if we could hold discussions based purely on observed facts, reputable sources, and logical conclusions that could be drawn from them. But an attempt to exclude faith-based opinions would undoubtedly, and probably legitimately, be viewed by some as censorship.>> Like the alternative, "I just know it when I see it."

To: Dayuhan who wrote (82396)	6/21/2000 12:10:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 108807

It would be wonderful if we could hold discussions based purely on observed facts, reputable sources, and logical conclusions that could be drawn from them. There are no pure observed facts. Every observed fact is colored by the biases and experiences of the observer. For a simplistic example, if you believe in UFOs, you will see certain things as pure observed facts proving the existence of UFOs, while if you are a skeptic you will take the same pure observation and find a non-UFO explanation for it. In a morecomlex example, certain people have pure observed experiences of the presence of God. These people ARE basing their postings on purely observed facts. reputable sources Reputable by whose definition? Is Chomsky more reputable than Matthew? Is Clinton more reputable than Augustine? When "reputable experts" can't even decide whether global warming is fact or myth, what hope is there for any group to agree what are reputable sources? Your reputable sources are my crazies, and vice versa. logical conclusions that could be drawn from them. The one thing I learned from studying and teaching logic is that it works wonderfully in the constrained world of mathematics and some sciences, but in the real world, the world of personality, emotion, political belief, religious belief, etc. it is a flawed tool. Your yearning for holding "discussions based purely on observed facts, reputable sources, and logical conclusions that could be drawn from them" is the same yearning of the reactionary for that better, cleaner world that never existed.