You have a point. I suppose I'm just too used to the connection from all those who wave away positive results because they are too complex, contrasting them to "cold hard facts".
But that's the limitation you're talking about, no?
-
[insert obvious "must be in all my replies to Guilen" chunk here]
The limitations I'm referring to is that cynicism seems to operate on a bias. Skepticism works in the sense that something -could- be wrong, and the response to that is more explorative than reactive.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 04:18 pm (UTC)But that's the limitation you're talking about, no?
-
[insert obvious "must be in all my replies to Guilen" chunk here]
no subject
Date: 2004-04-30 05:15 pm (UTC)GUILEN
no subject
Date: 2004-05-01 02:10 am (UTC)But of course you are right. Skepticism is based on the burden of proof (just as in court). Cynicism on an exaggeration of that burden.
See Kovitz's note here (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ArgumentumAdIgnorantiam).