If we can move aside opinion, redheads are more attractive than pink haired women, or "feelings", red heads are HOT, or Obama and Benghazi is terrible vs Reagan's 500 dead Marines in Beirut and is a hero. The methodology used to prove the features of gravity may not be applicable to drawing a conclusion re economics or politics. So much of our disagreements are little more than preferences and are not necessarily fact based or maybe and a different conclusion is reached. We don't argue about gravity, I will drop you on your head until you see the light. I cannot drop you on your head to prove 9-11 wasn't a govt. conspiracy. I can disprove each falsehood on which you claim to base your conspiracy. Of course the 9-11,aliens,illumanti,jesuits,popes,banksters et al., come with a preassumed belief and then fill in the blanks and discredit any contrary information, sheep, shills, you are asleep. Some method to keep facts cleared of the stain of opinion is THE goal. Now, how do we all reach the same conclusion from a given set of proven facts? Should we? Can we agree of the facts? How much energy should one expend to more closed minded people? If you develop a system to keep bunk level to a min., sign me up. However, Redheads are the hottest and if you don't see that you are a paid shill for some hair color cabal!! If you don't see that you are asleep..WAKE UP PEOPLE...buy gold.
Yes. And I'm a big Feynman fan. I'm on vacation right now but will address this when I return.
Mick....have you ever considered writing something on..."how to eliminate bunk"....?....say, from the standpoint where 'you have a theory'....and the best ways to eliminate bunk from a theory ? I'm guessing this might be derived greatly from the scientific method, as well as ways to avoid personal biases (in an internet world). I was very inspired from reading Feynman's "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman", specifically the last chapter. Here's a snip... Content from external source: It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another. Cargo Cult Science Richard Feynman From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974 Also in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html and a comment on the above speech... Content from external source: Unfortunately, Feynman omits the fundamental point: The method must be primarily inductive, not deductive, in order to be self-correcting and compatible with “scientific integrity.” As I explain in my book, the standard deductive method–in other words, the process of making wild guesses and then working backwards from the supposed answer to the observed facts–is invulnerable to counter-evidence and is not self-correcting. Only the inductive method that goes from observations to generalizations has the integrity and efficacy that Feynman claims for science. http://www.thelogicalleap.com/?p=164
Very nice. i am trying to use pearltree to collect my sprawling to a manageable mess.
