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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (35718)	4/23/1999 11:02:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Do these birds of which you speak try to pick apart their own ideas, or those of others? Yes, both. Evolution was a wonderful case in point. There was a raging debate about a fifty years ago concerning preadaptation vs. postadaptation. Once the definitive proof that postadaptation was incorrect the idea of preadaptation became universally accepted in fairly short order. Note that you cannot generally prove something true; instead you tend to disprove ideas. Only when continuing assaults on the hypothesis prove fruitless does science bestow the idea with the mantle of "theory". Clinical psychology, sociology and other soft "ologies" don't seem to require this kind of rigor, so I don't want to comment on them too much. I will say that a lot of what I see coming from clinical psychology seems to be pretty good fiction (recovered memories for example), but hardly qualifies as science. TTFN, CTC

To: Ilaine who wrote (35718)	4/23/1999 11:08:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I know you've signed off, Blue, but still have to nail you on this one: There may be academics who don't have pet beliefs about something, but I have yet to meet them. You, yourself, have beliefs about the stock market. Ms. JBE has beliefs about Chechenya. And so forth. "Pet beliefs"? I would suggest that both Chuzzlewit and I base our conclusions in the areas you cite on a great deal of study and direct observation and experience. And I would also suggest that we fit the following description, from the post to which you are reacting: Any scholar/thinker/scientist/etc. worth his salt retains a healthy skepticism about his own findings/discoveries/hypotheses, and has enough humility to recognize that his word will not be the last on the subject. Besides, even though we both have PhDs, we are not "academics", in the sense that we do not teach in any academic institution. So there! <gg> jbe