Good Afternoon, Jameson
I understand the point you make, even if I don't see it as a good idea
for those seeking to define rational concepts. While the technology of
communication has advanced over time, its effectiveness has lagged
because the modes of communication, whether printed or broadcast, are
uni-directional - from an author or announcer to an audience. Such
communication, unfortunately and inaccurately, assumes the author or
announcer has greater knowledge than the audience. Not only is that
rarely (if ever) true, it tends to propagate the inadequacies and biases
of the source. One of the results is that the audience habitually
discounts the source's assertions. Instead of building a sound
knowledge base, the audience ignores opinions it doesn't share.
Rational conclusions cannot be reached unless assertions are challenged
and the underlying concepts examined. That is best done, one at a time.
It is a slow process of assembling and distilling bits of information
that, taken together, help us identify basic principles. The process is
difficult because, in the realm of human interaction, most, if not all,
principles are dynamic. What is true in one set of circumstances may be
untrue in another.
I understand your point of view and have used it often. It works well
when seeking material accomplishment. For intellectual analysis,
though, my personal preference is for a more structured approach,
building a solid structure, one brick at a time.
Fred Gohlke
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
