Wrong. Try again. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
Migeru http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/10/18/131821/29#83
Now, just because something is not within the reach of science doesn't mean that what is said about it isn't woo-woo. I mean, science is not woo-woo free, so why should other areas of human experience be woo-woo free? Science is easy and structured enough that woo-woo tends to stick out like a sore thumb. So, when not doing science, one has to exercise more, not less critical judgement because there is no structure more or less adapted to weeding out woo-woo.
Please, find something good to say, Migeru! Your last attack on Sunday says enough. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
If it is merely the word "woo-woo" that is objectionable, I am sure that we can agree upon a replacement that denotes the same methodological errors but lacks the perceived pejorative tone.
May I suggest "excessive hand-waving?"
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
In any case, the force of the argument does not hinge on the particular wording. And there is no point in using terminology that raises red flags in people's minds from the word go.
I suspect the difference is chromosomal. A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
