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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (110829)	8/10/2003 11:08:24 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"bearing in mind the many fallacies that may enter into the interpretation of facts)"- This is simply a companion piece to the statement below. Sometimes people see facts in totally spurious ways (for example, the strange belief that telling your opponent in an argument to prove the negative of something, somehow means that YOU have proved the positive, or gone any distance to proving the positive- that is simply a false belief- logically erroneous. Another example would be the idea that because things follow each other in time, that somehow proves something. Proximity in time is not proof. This is a fairly common error people make with regard to causation.) "and remember that facts are curious things that can be seen more than one way," In part two we take into consideration that SOME facts are susceptible to multiple LOGICAL interpretations. Now I grant you that some people who are totally illogical think that their totally faulty reasoning should be subsumed under part "b" and not part "a". But I don't agree with them. I don't think being completely wrong about facts, is the same thing as putting another logical interpretation on them- those are two very distinct ways of operating, imo.