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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (157129)	7/2/2001 12:55:28 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The Perils of Precaution I forget who posted this, but found it interesting and bookmarked it. policyreview.org All the Best, josh * * *

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (157129)	7/2/2001 6:12:33 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"This is really quite absurd, my friend and I marvel you don’t see the ridiculousness of it." What is really amazing is the fact that a person as articulate as you and who seems to be intelligent failed to pick up my sarcasm vis-a-vis homeopathy. To put it bluntly I was trying to be a little witty with a person who I thought was fairly worldly. It was my misjudgment and I apologize. But now that you've explained you views and demonstrated such little scientific interest or competency in science I now understand why my comment went over your head. I also find it astounding that you know there is a god because you can see "him" in your computer screen and I think you said you arrived at your belief in the troika of Christianity all without benefit of published references but yet demand empirical evidence for anything here in the physical world. And for you information, most scientific conclusions are based on empirical evidence gained from well controlled experiments. This is true in chemistry, physics, medicine, etc etc. A scientist's hypothesis or speculation remains just that until the empirical evidence to make it a fact is obtained. You don't seem to comprehend that it is scientific people who are professionally skeptical not religious people. "Thirdly, were my aim to introduce a small amount of toxin into my water for medicinal purposes, then you’d have something of a point. I would be engaging in something like homeopathic medicine." You have totally missed the point...., when you said you had 100% water, ie H2O, I jokingly (I thought) said you were showering in homeopathic medicine which is what homeopathic practitioners should obtain if they continue to dilute the toxin or contaminant they place in the water to such a degree that there is little chance a single atom or molecule of the substance remains in the water, hence they have nothing but pure water. It was your use of the term 100% water that triggered my inane comment. I had hoped to provoke some believers in homeopathy into debate. So sorry to have confused you. BTW, your reverse osmosis system is not giving you "100 %" water but it is close enough for electrical engineers or religious people. :-)