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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24578)	7/25/2006 3:30:30 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

"They say that sweeping generalizations are always wrong." That statement is self contradicting.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (24578)	7/25/2006 10:35:53 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

<They say that sweeping generalizations are always wrong.> How can they ALWAYS be wrong?? I think you mean, they won't always be right! <Of course there is wrong and right in so much as some studies are out-and-out fraud. They generally don't fool people for long, but they do pose a puzzle. > Are Puzzles wrong? Is 'fraud' wrong... or is it simply what is? Is killing 'wrong'... or just something most people (including me) would like to avoid? <The scientific method works well because it corrects against fraud, as well as mistakes, as well as just clarification. > The scientific method works well in the correct context. It doesn't work well at all in some very important domains. <I would say that people had an indication that the earth was distinct from the rest of the universe. That part of it was valid.> I agree... just pointing out what 'some' say. DAK