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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (41898)	3/9/2010 8:57:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

the supporting evidence for any such set of opinions should be an objective fact subject to verification The supporting evidence for any claim about the overall issue is, or at least ideally should be subject to verification. I'm not making a claim about the issue. I'm making a claim about the evidence for the issue. A claim that there is evidence, is subject to verification (show the evidence). A claim that there is not evidence is not subject to verification (you can't prove the negative, but by asking for evidence you are in effect asking me to do so), but is easily subject to refutation (present the evidence to refute the point). A claim that there is no good evidence (which is essentially what I said), is similar to the last, but harder to refute because of the subjective nature of "good". ------ Edit - Also a simple measurement of the crashes before and after, would be very weak evidence for any claims about how G-S affected the situation. It was of course far from the only change. All sorts of changes where made in the 30s and later. We could look at the moon landing and look at bank crashes before and after, but even if they changed a lot it would not exactly be solid evidence that the landing had an impact on the issue. G-S is more plausibly connected, but "more plausibly" isn't "very plausibly", and even if it was, it still wouldn't make a before and after count solid evidence.