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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (101777)	1/25/2009 12:47:45 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 543271

Well said.

To: Lane3 who wrote (101777)	1/25/2009 3:01:35 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543271

No, that is bass ackwards. It is not scientific to look for evidence to support anything. If you go looking for it, you will find it but miss or discount all the evidence that contradicts it. Science studies the evidence first, then follow wherever it leads. Well, it's more complex than that. Theories don't just "jump out" of the evidence. It requires intuition based on the evidence. Then experiments are run to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Sometimes, the experiment may be run as way to falsify a hypothesis, sometimes it is run to confirm it. An honest scientist doesn't simply try to confirm his theories. And even if he/she did, there would be plenty of others who would try to falsify it. That is the scientific ethos. Skepticism is part of the socialization process of becoming a scientist. Which is one reason why the people who claim that global warming is conspiracy among scientists are really ridiculous. Scientists were skeptical of it when it was first proposed decades ago.

To: Lane3 who wrote (101777)	1/25/2009 3:37:20 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543271

No, that is bass ackwards. It is not scientific to look for evidence to support anything. If you go looking for it, you will find it but miss or discount all the evidence that contradicts it. Science studies the evidence first, then follow wherever it leads. Perhaps I should have described the scientific process this way. First an observation is made, then a theory or hypothesis is proposed, followed by evidence being gathered to support or refute the hypothesis. I wasn't suggesting that scientific theories are or can be just pulled out of thin air. That would make no sense.