I think your misreading Dan.
I think he is just basically saying that the only proof
that matters is proof that is available to everyone,
not to only one person internally.
peace
axeman
I think he is just basically saying that the only proof
that matters is proof that is available to everyone,
not to only one person internally.
peace
axeman
Originally posted by darkhorse
oh wait, one last thing i forgot to ask:
Dan if proof is always 'for all' or 'not at all', please explain how this situation can exist:
Two hedge fund managers of roughly equal skill, with the same basic methodogies, access to the same information sources and the same data sets, come to directly opposite conclusions regarding variable XYZ of the macroeconomic outlook.
This happens all the time.
If proof for one is proof for all as you say, how is that possible?
Why should truth be dependent on consensus? Is not truth wholly INdependent of consensus? Hmmm.
You like smart economic guys like Sowell, what say you of Sowell's mentor Milton Friedman's take:
"One man and the truth is a majority."
-Milton Friedman
p.s. lovely pictures Gekko, maybe you could get a draw program going and put a mustache and glasses on the pope, that would take your line of reasoning to the next level brudda