I would like to wholeheatedly support this contribution. I have sometimes
felt so upset that i have had to respond, and most likely fall victim of
points 2 and 3.
John Gunkler wrote
> I sometimes get quite upset at scientific errors perpetrated on the
> readers of this list, but I don't always respond because (1) I don't
> always have time, (2) it might seem like "tyranny of the experts" (to
> quote one of the most frequent error perpetrators), and (3) I worry that
> you may tune me out when I write other contributions because you perceive
> me to be too "picky" or "prickly." But I am concerned when we don't
> check out what others claim as truth (or as science); I am concerned when
> being "skeptical" (which I was taught was the very foundation of the
> scientific method) is considered ill-mannered; and I am concerned when I
> read something that sounds plausible but which I don't have the background
> to check out for myself ... am I being led down a primrose path? is the
> author building a case on shifting sand?
I agree with all the rest and would like to support his final statement:
> I plead with everyone here, please look skeptically at everything being
> presented on this list as a "fact" or logical conclusion or "empirical
> evidence" or scientific truth. And please, please help me protect my
> backside from the onslaught of my own ignorance by having the courage to
> point out errors or inconsistencies -- including, especially, my own. Do
> so in your usual polite, helping fashion -- but please do so. All I ask
> is that your comments be relevant to the topic being discussed.
Thanks John you've expressed it far better than I could have.
"Dr Maggi Linington" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <email@example.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>