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: maceng2 who wrote (189083)	6/12/2006 12:17:09 AM
From: neolib	Respond to of 281500

Do you laugh at Neils Bohr who disputed Einstein's theory on the photoelectric effect, even though by 1922 Einstein's theory was backed by a ton of experimental evidence? Not to mention Einsteins great resistance to QM. Everyone has their blind spots. Which is why we look at the weight of scientific opinion, not the opinions of a single individual. Look at Gold, a very well respected scientist, with his abiotic oil theory. This is why the Appeal to Authority is one of the well know and very ancient fallacies. You must look at the evidence, not quote some famous person, be they Bohr, Einstein or whoever. Your idea that it was "obvious" that there was a clear cancer link looks a little less compelling when you watch any 1950's film. The people smoking don't seem awfully aware of the risks they were taking. You could also have said that not much was known about cancer period in 1950. However, you don't have to know much about the actual causes to understand correlation, and tobacco use and lung cancer are nicely correlated, and I think that had been known for quite awhile. BTW, no one would argue the direction of causation in that one either.