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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: a.handbag. who wrote (152574)	6/12/2011 10:34:48 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	9 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206151

Science is the process of collecting data, evaluating it and creating a model to fit the data. A central thesis is that the model MUST be repeatable. Too many "scientists" talk their book. They have their entire lives tied up in their ideals and "models" and set about working with preconceived notions. They make the data fit their pre-determined models, which is bass-ackwards. To invalidate a lifetime of research and be proven wrong is too much of a blow to any academic. Modern scientists are businessmen. It is all about funding and the push from above to "publish or die". GW is such a case and in the fullness of time will be shown to be nothing more than a religion. GW theory violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics but does anyone state that? Of course not. S&P

To: a.handbag. who wrote (152574)	6/12/2011 1:34:11 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206151

<Science is...being open to a change of mind> That's the hard part. Once we've reached a conclusion, we start filtering all new info, discounting data that contradicts our cherished theories, and clinging to data that supports it. Everyone knows everyone else does this...and everyone denies they themselves do it. The observer always observes from their own peculiar view-point; all of our thinking, and all the conclusions that result, are partly (and sometimes purely) faith-based; it is arrogant and Utopian, for anyone to claim their thinking is Pure Reason. Everyone does this: I do it, you do, and so does every scientist pro and con GW. That's my point: objectivity is a myth. As an ideal, it's fine, as long as we always admit we'll never actually reach that ideal. As a habit, I disclose my position, because I know it will affect my thinking. I want to know who is paying the salary of every scientist or analyst I read. Also, I've noticed, those who loudly proclaim their own objectivity, and loudly accuse their opponents of bias, tend to be the most biased themselves. I can think of several examples among frequent posters here; I'll bet you can too.