When people try to 'scientize' things that really are too ambiguous to be accurately studied, they introduce a huge amount of bias into it. So, in at least some cases, it's better to just leave the question open, or try to explain what's at hand from wisdom/experience/social observation rather than try to conjure up flawed (pseudo)scientific explanations.

-------
cool :cool:

---

I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias. Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe. They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense.

---

---

Quote: from liv21 at 12:11 pm on Oct. 6, 2008

---

I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias.  Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe.  They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense.

---

I'd think that many of them are just closed minded and poor observers...And sometimes you have to take into account stuff that isn't blatantly obvious. If you follow just the obvious and ignore everything else, then you stand to fail.

---

I'm more concerned about closed-minded non-observers.

-------
Too blunt your knife to slay this dreamer
-The Gathering, A Life All Mine

---

Quote: from prisoner of hss at 9:38 am on Oct. 6, 2008

---

Quote: from liv21 at 12:11 pm on Oct. 6, 2008

---

I tend to agree, but the "bias" you speak of isn't really bias. Theorists arrive at certain conclusions based on what they can observe. They don't take into account what they CAN'T observe, if that makes sense.

---

I'd think that many of them are just closed minded and poor observers...And sometimes you have to take into account stuff that isn't blatantly obvious. If you follow just the obvious and ignore everything else, then you stand to fail.

---

I'm more concerned about closed-minded non-observers.

---