Pike's ghost

David Stockhoff · 29 Nov 2011, 19:26 · from 2011-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:26:03 -0500
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED52C8C.4030905 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>
	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>	<4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>
	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net>	<4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>
	<4ED41B0E.6050507 at gmail.com>	<4ED41F91.1020906 at gmail.com>
	<4ED4276E.8040608 at gmail.com>	<4ED4293C.2010906 at gmail.com>
	<4ED50482.8030804 at gmail.com>	<4ED5064C.8000004 at gmail.com>
	<4ED50A58.7080100 at gmail.com>	<4ED50C1A.2060103 at gmail.com>
	<4ED511BF.8050105 at gmail.com>	<4ED51769.7080001 at gmail.com>
	<4ED51CFB.7010209 at gmail.com>	<4ED51E51.4060809 at verizon.net>
	<4ED52922.5040503 at irit.fr> <4ED52C8C.4030905 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED531CB.8030106 at verizon.net>

On 11/29/2011 2:03 PM, James Wynn wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 12:49 PM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:
>> I think that there are still some "minimum requirements" to the 
>> people who advance
>> an extravagant new theory -
>>
>> - if they claim that the theory is supported by the text, it would be 
>> fair to do the
>> work finding necessary quotations, and honestly present the context 
>> (not to make
>> the opponent to browse the whole book to find out that the next 
>> sentence to the
>> sentence just quoted is disproving the theory)
>>
>> - to be polite, and not to present disagreement as stupidity
>>
>> - not to try to intimidate the opponents presenting their hypotheses
>> as common knowledge and consensus
>
> It doesn't need to be a so-called extravagant theory for all these 
> rules to apply.
> There are people with extravagant theories who have presented them in 
> detail many times in the past. It's probably not reasonable for anyone 
> to be required to back every statement with proof each time they make 
> an assertion.

Of course, there's the problem of who decides what theories are 
"extravagant."

For example, it's OK to describe your vision of the big picture without 
showing proof; how can you show proof for a theory when it is based on 
everything? But such theories tend to be unprovable and therefore 
undisprovable (and undisprovable does not mean proven). In a sense, 
then, perhaps it is the most "extravagant" theories that ought to 
require less proof, not the reverse.

I guess my point is that honesty goes a long way. If a theory is based 
on intuition, admit it. If it's based on books outside the text, say so. 
If you don't know any books outside the text, admit that too. These have 
been problems in the past.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net