I can't help thinking that looking at the facts on a subject and looking at proven results, is a good thing, as it prevents people from disappearing down a blinkered view of their own experiences and misconceptions.
However, don't we also have to explore other possibilities (but also taking into consideration the facts), and look beyond the known facts we have right now. I can't help thinking that if the human race had not done this we would never of progressed beyond cave-men.
Whats your thoughts on the Pheasy line of thinking here ? :-4
Facts ....
-
Indian Princess
- Posts: 1953
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 4:55 pm
Facts ....
um, it's roughly a little after 7 am here, and this thread is too complicated for my lil brain this early in the morning so after a Coca-Cola me thinks I will then attempt to respond, but not until that tingley feeling:wah::wah:
Facts ....
Perhaps there are two or three kinds of facts bundled up in this under the same label and they need teasing apart. There are genuine facts, there are the facts we all know to be true and there are the exceptions.
The blinkered view is to assume that the facts we all know to be true are unchallengeable. The guy who changes what "everyone knows" is the one who sees the exception and wonders whether it's true or not since it goes completely against what everyone knows. Assuming he finds it to be true he has a problem. How does he re-state what everyone knows in such a way that it doesn't deny what he's found out to also be true. If he can re-state all the facts including the exception in such a way that it makes coherent sense and it's persuasive then he might end up changing what everyone knows. It might even involve demonstrating that some of the old facts were always untrue but nobody had thought to look and see.
It's definitely exploring other possibilities but as you said it's "also taking into consideration the facts". Somewhere inside all that is the complication that different beliefs can be mutually exclusive. Agreeing the actual facts underlying the beliefs is the essential beginning to finding an agreement and that's the hardest part.
The blinkered view is to assume that the facts we all know to be true are unchallengeable. The guy who changes what "everyone knows" is the one who sees the exception and wonders whether it's true or not since it goes completely against what everyone knows. Assuming he finds it to be true he has a problem. How does he re-state what everyone knows in such a way that it doesn't deny what he's found out to also be true. If he can re-state all the facts including the exception in such a way that it makes coherent sense and it's persuasive then he might end up changing what everyone knows. It might even involve demonstrating that some of the old facts were always untrue but nobody had thought to look and see.
It's definitely exploring other possibilities but as you said it's "also taking into consideration the facts". Somewhere inside all that is the complication that different beliefs can be mutually exclusive. Agreeing the actual facts underlying the beliefs is the essential beginning to finding an agreement and that's the hardest part.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Facts ....
Indian Princess;722560 wrote: um, it's roughly a little after 7 am here, and this thread is too complicated for my lil brain this early in the morning so after a Coca-Cola me thinks I will then attempt to respond, but not until that tingley feeling:wah::wah:
This is my best time of day .... then my brain slowly fades ...... away
This is my best time of day .... then my brain slowly fades ...... away
Facts ....
spot;722562 wrote: Perhaps there are two or three kinds of facts bundled up in this under the same label and they need teasing apart. There are genuine facts, there are the facts we all know to be true and there are the exceptions.
The blinkered view is to assume that the facts we all know to be true are unchallengeable. The guy who changes what "everyone knows" is the one who sees the exception and wonders whether it's true or not since it goes completely against what everyone knows. Assuming he finds it to be true he has a problem. How does he re-state what everyone knows in such a way that it doesn't deny what he's found out to also be true. If he can re-state all the facts including the exception in such a way that it makes coherent sense and it's persuasive then he might end up changing what everyone knows. It might even involve demonstrating that some of the old facts were always untrue but nobody had thought to look and see.
It's definitely exploring other possibilities but as you said it's "also taking into consideration the facts". Somewhere inside all that is the complication that different beliefs can be mutually exclusive. Agreeing the actual facts underlying the beliefs is the essential beginning to finding an agreement and that's the hardest part.
I agree Spot. And I can't see anyone disagreeing....so there goes the shortest thread in history ..... unless someone wants to challenge this as not being the shortest thread or my view on what might happen next
:wah:
The blinkered view is to assume that the facts we all know to be true are unchallengeable. The guy who changes what "everyone knows" is the one who sees the exception and wonders whether it's true or not since it goes completely against what everyone knows. Assuming he finds it to be true he has a problem. How does he re-state what everyone knows in such a way that it doesn't deny what he's found out to also be true. If he can re-state all the facts including the exception in such a way that it makes coherent sense and it's persuasive then he might end up changing what everyone knows. It might even involve demonstrating that some of the old facts were always untrue but nobody had thought to look and see.
It's definitely exploring other possibilities but as you said it's "also taking into consideration the facts". Somewhere inside all that is the complication that different beliefs can be mutually exclusive. Agreeing the actual facts underlying the beliefs is the essential beginning to finding an agreement and that's the hardest part.
I agree Spot. And I can't see anyone disagreeing....so there goes the shortest thread in history ..... unless someone wants to challenge this as not being the shortest thread or my view on what might happen next
:wah:Facts ....
jimbo;722558 wrote: i can recieve emails but not fax
Does anyone want to challenge the known fact that our Jimbo is totally .... :yh_party:yh_party
Does anyone want to challenge the known fact that our Jimbo is totally .... :yh_party:yh_party
Facts ....
ThePheasant;722571 wrote: Does anyone want to challenge the known fact that our Jimbo is totally .... :yh_party:yh_party
Jimbo has neither the equipment nor an adequate knowledge of what to do with it if he had.
Jimbo has neither the equipment nor an adequate knowledge of what to do with it if he had.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Facts ....
You mentioned progressing beyond cave-men. A big part of that is invention rather than new facts. Someone once invented the bill of exchange, for example.
Your cave-men had a concept of us and them. We share what we have among ourselves, we don't share with them because then we no longer have what we had. If we share with them we might get something new like prestige, that's an important addition to what we had before and it's cost us what we shared to get it. Beyond that lies trade, the idea that we'll swap this which is ours for that which is yours. Everything so far is face-to-face gifting or exchange.
Someone, I think, deliberately thought out the idea that a token could denote consent. In exchange for the token, goods or services would be supplied. The token could be exchanged elsewhere at another time for equivalent value. That's a major invention, it might well date a long way into pre-history and it's entirely based on an idea rather than a reality. Inventing it introduced a fact that hadn't previously existed and which didn't depend on previous facts for it to become true. The blinkered cave-man is the one who doesn't understand or trust the new invention and maybe he fails to thrive in consequence compared to those who do. Those tokens are powerful tools, they're new possibilities which had no factual underpinning when they were first introduced.
Inventions are additive. Facts are reductive. I know a set of facts, you uncover a new fact and suddenly some portion of my facts is no longer true. My stock of facts has been reduced if I acknowledge the truth of yours. The world certainly seems reluctant to face new facts and that might be why. If my stock of facts is reduced maybe my options on future actions diminishes at the same time.
We need a new style of debate in which the pool of accepted facts has to be agreed by all parties before each is used in argument. I state this, you challenge its basis in fact and I can't use it in argument. That would make for an interesting structure. I can think of a number of current threads where it would clear the undergrowth and show up the lie of the land in greater contrast.
Your cave-men had a concept of us and them. We share what we have among ourselves, we don't share with them because then we no longer have what we had. If we share with them we might get something new like prestige, that's an important addition to what we had before and it's cost us what we shared to get it. Beyond that lies trade, the idea that we'll swap this which is ours for that which is yours. Everything so far is face-to-face gifting or exchange.
Someone, I think, deliberately thought out the idea that a token could denote consent. In exchange for the token, goods or services would be supplied. The token could be exchanged elsewhere at another time for equivalent value. That's a major invention, it might well date a long way into pre-history and it's entirely based on an idea rather than a reality. Inventing it introduced a fact that hadn't previously existed and which didn't depend on previous facts for it to become true. The blinkered cave-man is the one who doesn't understand or trust the new invention and maybe he fails to thrive in consequence compared to those who do. Those tokens are powerful tools, they're new possibilities which had no factual underpinning when they were first introduced.
Inventions are additive. Facts are reductive. I know a set of facts, you uncover a new fact and suddenly some portion of my facts is no longer true. My stock of facts has been reduced if I acknowledge the truth of yours. The world certainly seems reluctant to face new facts and that might be why. If my stock of facts is reduced maybe my options on future actions diminishes at the same time.
We need a new style of debate in which the pool of accepted facts has to be agreed by all parties before each is used in argument. I state this, you challenge its basis in fact and I can't use it in argument. That would make for an interesting structure. I can think of a number of current threads where it would clear the undergrowth and show up the lie of the land in greater contrast.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Facts ....
spot;722596 wrote: You mentioned progressing beyond cave-men. A big part of that is invention rather than new facts. Someone once invented the bill of exchange, for example.
Your cave-men had a concept of us and them. We share what we have among ourselves, we don't share with them because then we no longer have what we had. If we share with them we might get something new like prestige, that's an important addition to what we had before and it's cost us what we shared to get it. Beyond that lies trade, the idea that we'll swap this which is ours for that which is yours. Everything so far is face-to-face gifting or exchange.
Someone, I think, deliberately thought out the idea that a token could denote consent. In exchange for the token, goods or services would be supplied. The token could be exchanged elsewhere at another time for equivalent value. That's a major invention, it might well date a long way into pre-history and it's entirely based on an idea rather than a reality. Inventing it introduced a fact that hadn't previously existed and which didn't depend on previous facts for it to become true. The blinkered cave-man is the one who doesn't understand or trust the new invention and maybe he fails to thrive in consequence compared to those who do. Those tokens are powerful tools, they're new possibilities which had no factual underpinning when they were first introduced.
Inventions are additive. Facts are reductive. I know a set of facts, you uncover a new fact and suddenly some portion of my facts is no longer true. My stock of facts has been reduced if I acknowledge the truth of yours. The world certainly seems reluctant to face new facts and that might be why. If my stock of facts is reduced maybe my options on future actions diminishes at the same time.
We need a new style of debate in which the pool of accepted facts has to be agreed by all parties before each is used in argument. I state this, you challenge its basis in fact and I can't use it in argument. That would make for an interesting structure. I can think of a number of current threads where it would clear the undergrowth and show up the lie of the land in greater contrast.
Crikes Spot!! What are you trying to do to my brain this morning
I have to go out now, but will ponder and think about a reply :wah:
Your cave-men had a concept of us and them. We share what we have among ourselves, we don't share with them because then we no longer have what we had. If we share with them we might get something new like prestige, that's an important addition to what we had before and it's cost us what we shared to get it. Beyond that lies trade, the idea that we'll swap this which is ours for that which is yours. Everything so far is face-to-face gifting or exchange.
Someone, I think, deliberately thought out the idea that a token could denote consent. In exchange for the token, goods or services would be supplied. The token could be exchanged elsewhere at another time for equivalent value. That's a major invention, it might well date a long way into pre-history and it's entirely based on an idea rather than a reality. Inventing it introduced a fact that hadn't previously existed and which didn't depend on previous facts for it to become true. The blinkered cave-man is the one who doesn't understand or trust the new invention and maybe he fails to thrive in consequence compared to those who do. Those tokens are powerful tools, they're new possibilities which had no factual underpinning when they were first introduced.
Inventions are additive. Facts are reductive. I know a set of facts, you uncover a new fact and suddenly some portion of my facts is no longer true. My stock of facts has been reduced if I acknowledge the truth of yours. The world certainly seems reluctant to face new facts and that might be why. If my stock of facts is reduced maybe my options on future actions diminishes at the same time.
We need a new style of debate in which the pool of accepted facts has to be agreed by all parties before each is used in argument. I state this, you challenge its basis in fact and I can't use it in argument. That would make for an interesting structure. I can think of a number of current threads where it would clear the undergrowth and show up the lie of the land in greater contrast.
Crikes Spot!! What are you trying to do to my brain this morning
I have to go out now, but will ponder and think about a reply :wah: