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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (1044)	3/4/2002 10:22:09 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

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. You misrepresent the six posts I made in response to you yesterday on that topic. I countered with substantive arguments, which you ignored, simply repeating your profound wish to engage in thought stimulation. Frankly, if you don't understand why your Vitz link was greeted with Handey-isms, I don't think you're capable of much deep thought.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (1044)	3/4/2002 11:04:45 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Scientific papers generally begin with a hypothesis, which is an "assumption." But a scientific hypothesis should not begin by excluding germane explanations of the very subject under discussion. It's self-fulfilling: "For my argument, I assume that other explanations for this phenomena are not true." You can't seriously explain why people do not believe in a god (stil less a specific god...) and commence by excluding the rational! What he does follows the style of scientific debate, but only superficially. His hypothesis begs the question: his 'evidence' suggests anecdotal or unprovable attribution (the suggested, possible, undocumented, unproven subconscious motivation of a few, dead, individuals is NOT evidence in a scientific sense): and then he draws a 'conclusion' which slurs by implication and begs its own question again. Hence it's pseudo science - too weak to be valid even by the weak criteria of post-modern, self-referential sociological tract or psycho-babble. It's not even worth addressing the 'arguments' in more detail because this lends it false credence, and it's pointless arguing feelings and opinions which is all that remain - you can't make real rational arguments against an irrational premise with unprovable effects and no testable conclusion.