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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (152582)	6/14/2011 12:38:48 AM
From: Archie Meeties	4 Recommendations Respond to of 206152

"Objectivity is a myth". Sounds like some Derrida stuff I studied in my philsophy class years ago. But in the real world we have to make decisions based on the best evidence of science and best tools and technology at hand. You do not want a bridge builder who doesn't know material science, you don't want a surgeon who doesn't understand physiology. Hard science is precise and experiments reliable. When the outcome isn't reliable, it's predictably unreliable. Anyways, much of the civilization you see around you was gained by the hard work of people who added endorsed science or turned it into usable technology. Climatology is not the hardest of sciences, but it makes objective predictions, many of which, for example, drought conditions in the SW, temperatures, polar cap volumes, that have been verified over time. Global warming is really not up for debate in any scientific community, and the debate about whether GW is happening is probably obscuring a more important debate, which is, "just how worried we should be about it". As for scientists being stuck masturbating to their own theories, that's partly true. But more importantly, there is a lot of scientific incentive to revise, improve, or even over through an established theory. Theories are continually revised. Science celebrates those who usually refine or revolutionize the established body of knowledge. Newton, Einstein, Darwin, they were celebrated (more or less, some folks had a problem with Darwin). If somebody out there had a robust theory to explain how the earth's temperatures are rising and how this is not connected to a rise in gases which objectively cause warming, they'd get plenty of press time. As it is, nobody has such a theory. Stock picking is completely different. There isn't much science here, although you might get to crunch some numbers if you are a deep value player. I agree with your idea of posting your own trades and becoming aware of your biases. My bias is that explaining things helps people understand, and I'm probably completely wrong!