On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:17:46 -0400, "Jeff Harper"
wrote:

On the other hand, Simonton didn't see much evidence that Bush tries hard
to
use the brains he's got. "He has very little intellectual energy or
curiosity, relatively few interests, and a dearth of bona fide aesthetic
or
cultural tastes." Simonton speculated that this could suggest a low level
of
"openness to experience."

Thus, the subsequent statements by Simonton fall into the category of pure
opinion. It is Simonton's OPINION that Bush has little intellectual
energy
or curiositiy. It is his OPINION that Bush doesn't use the brains he's
got.

What kind of opinion? Oh, yeah, "educated opinion of a professional in the
field."

That beats *your* opinion, I bet. If not, please link your vita.



You obviously failed to grasp my point. I'm not surprised, it is a
subtle point that requires a bit of thought. My point was the fact that
you took a fact stated in a particular reference and used the presence of
that fact to validate the opinions expressed in the reference. i.e, simply
by the presence of something verifiable in a paper, one does not lend
credence to the opinions expressed therein unless there is a clear, logical
progression of logical steps can be stated that lead to a logical
conclusion (which, at that point would really not be opinion, but
conclusion derived from fact) Instead, the person citing the fact that
"Bush had a high SAT score", then offered the opinion, "but he doesn't use
his intelligence", followed by some fuzzy science psycho-babble to further
expound upon said opinion. Educated opinion of a professional can apply
equally well to the stated opinion of a tarot card reader -- that the card
reader is a professional does not render the opinion valid nor logically
correct. One could also make the statement that Simonton offered the
"educated" opinon of a very biased, agenda driven partisan using his
stature in the field to advance a political agenda.