(urth) Pike's ghost

[David Stockhoff]

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.