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: Oeconomicus who wrote (94285)	1/21/2005 3:52:57 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You seem very combative on this - not sure why... Okay, slowly, one professor at Harvard who isn't in math, science, engineering or physics (real sciences) says this is "more evidence of blah-blah-blah" all without evidence, mind you. It is an opinion. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, and so, it seems, does she. I made no ad hominem attack of what she says since I don't know her and made no slam at her (I'm not discounting the truth of her position). I'm not denigrating her opinion. I'm merely saying her opinion is no different than any other person and it is a fallacy to cite HER opinion as particularly authoritative opinion (fallacy: appeal to her authority as a professor) because she isn't in the set of people affected (women in science or men choosing them). This isn't about her, but her physical membership of a set. She may very well be right, but what I saw was not a fact based argument (you can't even introduce her opinion as an expert if she isn't one, but to do so would still be an appeal to authority). I saw nothing but a rant. I get enough rants here on SI without seeking them out using Google, Right Wing radio or the WSJ opinion page. Her article did not factually add to the discussion but appeared to be a tit for tat.