(urth) Pike's ghost

[Sergei SOLOVIEV]

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

Regards

Sergei Soloviev

David Stockhoff wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 12:57 PM, James Wynn wrote:
>> If I am going to discuss a theory, I approach it from the position, 
>> "What if it were true? What would I expect?". I have never said to 
>> anyone, for an example, "This is /your/ theory. YOU come up with 
>> something that I will accept." I've been told that here in various 
>> ways by some people. I've seen people say it to others. That's 
>> expecting other people to prove you wrong. That's smug. That's a jerk. 
>
> Exactly.
>
> On the other hand, I do expect commenters who *assert* that I'm wrong 
> to *prove* me wrong. Sometimes they do in short order.
>
> Sometimes they don't and won't, and it takes forever to find that out.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net