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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (20871)	4/15/2007 4:10:26 AM
From: axial	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 46821

Should be required reading. Despite the disdain many hold for the legal process, at heart it's rational, and scientific: designed to eliminate fallacious and illogical thought. What is acceptable evidence? What conclusions can be logically drawn from that evidence? There's also a place for generally-held knowledge, and the actions of "a reasonable person". Many wrongly use this as a springboard from unsubstantiated belief to unjustified conclusion. In normal discourse, to be logically compliant, one sometimes has to insert so many disclaimers, possible exceptions, and qualifications that the point of statements can be almost lost. So we abridge, and rely on the recipient to understand more than the literal meaning of the words: the "mostly true" statement, with exceptions mutually accepted. Usually OK in a friendly discussion, but not an adversarial one. The problem is that logic can't solve everything. It can only give us better thinking, and better debates. Jim