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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (13644)	2/12/2011 6:47:16 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"I would evaluate an eye surgeon on his technical merit exclusively, since his storkism stays outside the OR." And there we have a fundamental point of disagreement. I believe that such an egregious body of misinformation (that babies are delivered by storks) suggests a sufficient distancing from reality to constitute a strong possibility that his surgical competence may (at some point and in some conditions) be compromised. I don't believe doctors (nor people in general) can leave entire parts of themselves behind as they move from room to room and change into different coats. That is an ideal that true professionals often strive for. But it is an ideal that is particularly vulnerable in one whose reality is fractured by truly bizarre thoughts and fanciful beliefs. To go even farther: I think it is obvious that someone who believes that babies are delivered by storks would necessarily have internalized myriad other beliefs necessary to buttress that belief with endopychic integrity and consistency. The patient (yourself) would certainly not have access to these dependent beliefs--nor probably does Dr. Rook himself. "I don't like his attitude. That's why I don't want to be his customer." Those are your words fashioned to fit your interpretation and a desired outcome to your train of thought. And I expect you to be the author of your own opinion. All good. But I thought that it was a thinly veiled way of saying: "There is certainly room for diversity of opinion and variance in disagreements amongst competent and healthy thinkers and professionals--and we ought to respect that diversity of opinion; but, on the other hand, professional service to the public and to ones professional peers ought to respect a natural caution and thus rest within certain latitudes of tolerance. Professional bodies have high expectations in both private and public life. Indeed, personal affairs are often circumscribed to ethical guidelines drawn up for many professions--even where behaviors are not illegal..simply because they are seen to inform the competence and/or service level, of the practitioner. And competence in skill cannot and must not be seen to override any and all considerations. There is a point and a place to draw a line if we are to remain dedicated to human concerns." Finally, my comments to you have nothing to do with Gaskell at this time. My response was addressing only your original post that Dawkin's statement (about storks) was fractured. Whether or not I would consider his (Gaskell's) case equivalent to one who believes in storks--I can't say at this time. I think it shows incredible irrationality to believe in any of the god dogmas invented by primitive man over any other god dogmas invented by primitive man, but I don't wish to conflate that specific situation with the question of Dawkin's specific metaphor/analogy. "I would certainly hope that you discriminate in how you like to get your wiener hot" Sometimes I merely warm the bun. A bit of butter and it's all good.. ;-)