I had asked Eric Yost how he would determine 'solid content' (Eric's words) without, at some point, doing a headcount. In response, Eric points out cases where mere headcount doesn't determine truth or quality. Of course, this isn't a response to my question since it doesn't get us anywhere close to determining what 'solid content' might be. I will try again. I agree with Eric that mere headcounts do not guarantee us truth or quality. What I would like to know is how Eric gets to 'solid content' without, at some point, doing a headcount. To get this going in the right direction, I will suggest that a scientific theory is not acceptable without there being a headcount in some form. This headcount might include peer review in journals and the more ephemeral 'accepted by most scientists'. Can a theory be considered 'solid' without this kind of headcount? Is a theory scientifically 'solid' if it doesn't pass peer review? I would furthermore argue that 'headcounts' are necessary for any form of discourse that aspires to 'solid content'. My final point would be that 'headcounts' are not a matter of numbers but an indicator of the coherence and veracity of that which aspires to 'solid content'. Again, I would like to know how Eric determines 'solid content' without, at some point, doing a headcount. Sincerely, Phil Enns Toronto, ON ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html