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: Grainne who wrote (35762)	4/24/1999 6:10:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, do you know this from reading scholarly archeological journals? I find your assertion hard to believe. I am not saying you are wrong -- I don't follow archeology, but in my experience science presented on television and in the popular press is often muddled, biased or just plain wrong. CTC

To: Grainne who wrote (35762)	4/24/1999 8:29:00 PM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I was particularly struck by the irony of an earlier post in which (nihil, I think) was talking about the fluid nature of psychology, the attendant fads we see popping up every few years, and the silly results they often produce. The "science" of psychology is dedicated to getting a grasp on the mechanisms of the psyche. To date, I have yet to encounter a school of psychology which has convinced me as having definitive answers to the big questions relating to the human mind. Considering this, since we've yet to conclusively understand the nature of the very organ we use to interpret our existence, don't all of the conclusions we reach by employing that organ stand on shifting sands? Kick it up a notch with a dash of the Uncertainty Princple, and we have the recipe for hubris when one encounters others who might claim authority in any field. (Being an "Authority" is a good way to make a living though, and I've submitted some sweet invoices supported by that very contention.) Of course we can present persuasive arguments, supported with data, sound scientific methodology, and get a bunch of "experts" to nod their heads in agreement, but that's hardly the stuff of defining reality. Rather, it's the stuff of our humanity--being willing to accept well presented conclusions as fact, because of our desperate (and critical) need to lay our heads on the pillow at night with some semblance of a handle on our existence. Behind the facade of our confidence stands a bewildered mind. Our confidence is merely a buffer between "normal" functioning and sheer insanity, and in order to keep ourselves from falling into that abyss, we build theoretical constructs in every arena of our lives. But they're nothing more than buffers-- fences--very mobile and malleable ones.