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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (8725)	12/4/2010 7:55:54 AM
From: Lane3	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I know a lot of scientists and they have all been among the better thinkers I know. I do not understand your recent comments. You seem to have created some strawman in which I am hostile to science and scientists. That could not be further from the truth. I am a strong advocate for the scientific method and I hold in high regard those who understand and apply it. I have known a lot of scientists, too, who were strong thinkers. But I have also witnessed what has to be either weak thinking or deception as scientists assert things that are not true and/or cannot be demonstrated, which is myth producing no less than the pronouncements of a witch doctor. Whether they do so through deception or weak thinking, science is poorer for their actions. That both offends and saddens me. And makes your putting the current batch as a whole on a pedestal a real head scratcher. Unlike you, I differentiate between science and scientists. I also differentiate between quality scientists and the rest. Further, I differentiate between the fields of natural scientists and those of social science, where adherence to the scientific method is attenuated. Sociology simply does not have the scientific rigor of geology. It is a fallacy to generalize from the quality of thinking of a scientist when he is doing science to when he is operating in other arenas, such as politics. It is also not very scientific, that is, it doesn't not sufficiently account for variables, to not differentiate among the sciences. Your notion also confuses correlation with causation. Tsk, tsk.