On Friday 27 January 2006 21:53, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > Roger Oberholtzer wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 11:36 -0600, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > >>Just for the record, I was trying to make an oblique reference to Matt > >>18:3. No one is asking that you become stupid. But if we cannot review > >>new data without old prejudice, we will never hear the new data. > > > > But the rub is that experience also helps to to understand things > > better. And it is this experience that also shades what we see. The > > proverbial double edged sword. > > Not quite. The problem is emotional association. That and how much we > have invested in what we already believe. If we can evaluate new > information on its factual merits rather than through the prism of what > we believe, we can make reasoned choices. Unfortunately, that is not > the normal human response.
Sorry, but that still sounds like the recipe for brainwashing. Perhaps we are speaking different dialects, but what I believe covers what I believe to be true already. So that plays into how I measure credibility. If I fail to measure credibility or figure out where new information might fit, I am asking to be brainwashed. Given the number of entities which are more than happy to brainwash me, I will either have to choose which one to allow my brainwashing or accept all inaccurate and contradicting data and accept that I don't have a clue what's going on. Those are my thoughts. Right now we are in the middle of what we are discussing. I used to accept new data as fact quite easily, *especially* when it "sounds good" as your comments currently do. However I noticed that my opinion was often changing and contradicting itself. In recent years I've decided to do something about that. I consider it my taking responsibility for my knowledge and understanding, and my own opinions/beliefs. > > That is one reason that I love the hard sciences. We are constantly > learning new things, cherished old theories are no longer useful. If we > are to stay in the field, we must evaluate information rationally. It > is a bit like having your code criticized. It is not you, it is your > code. Many programmers have trouble with the difference. Again, simple system. I like the concept, but as a computer scientist and philosopher, I don't see how it can scale. With computer science, given enough gumption and knowledge, you can prove things or disprove them on your own computer system. Opinions about which algorithm is a "better O(n)" than another, but simple experimentation and testing can provide analysis of which is faster, more stable, etc... Better yet, if someone proves my code is bad, they can show me how and I can reproduce it on my own system. I'm not taking their word for it. There is much less "faith" in computer science, if you are diligent. (disregarding the multitudes who believe that their Windows box is safe on the Internet because they only have hidden shares. :) Try proving evolution on your own. Heck, try proving it with all the money and resources in the world! Forgive the Michigander accent to a southern phrase: "That dog don't hunt". Whether it's true or not, there is no way to prove it. I'm not trying to say I can disprove it. I'm also not saying that evolution disproves intelligent design or creation. I simply choose to believe creation and remain skeptical about the other. Matt ps. Did Doug make it so the list rejects Signed emails? Every one I send gets kicked back as "The message's content type was not explicitly allowed" -- Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eisgr.com/ Enterprise Information Systems * Network Server Appliances * Security Consulting, Incident Handling & Forensics * Network Consulting, Integration & Support * Web Integration and E-Business _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
