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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (167984)	5/29/2006 8:11:29 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793809

(I wonder if he donates the proceeds to a worthy cause?) He donates them to an environmental fund. It really is indecent (your word) to continue to hype claims about our environment that haven't been scientifically proven... I agree it's indecent to hype anything, anything serious, at least. To the extent that he's hyping, shame on him. I think that putting forth scientific claims yet unproven is appropriate and necessary, however, just as long as they aren't presented as having more credibility than they actually have. It seems to me that anyone with half a brain recognizes that much in science is unproven. That's the way it works. Some things you can prove, others you can't, but much of the latter gains acceptance and is the practical equivalent of proven until something comes along to change that status. So it seems to me that the differentiation he should be making (and maybe he does, I haven't followed his work that closely) is not between the proven and not proven but between the accepted and not so accepted. He may be passing off as accepted some stuff that's pretty far out there. For example, the latest I read about global warming was that we've reached or shortly will reach the point of no return. That's not something that should be put forth as accepted. They are ignorant and wish to remain so. That's the case in many different arenas.