I don't have all the answers.

I don't have all the answers so I just make stuff up as I type.

Just be careful about what stuff you type about.
 
Beemermark said:
I'm an engineer in the nuclear industry. Everything I write is independtly verified by at least 2 people. Once upon a time Editors ensured stories were somewhat factual. Not anymore (except for maybe the Wall Street Journal that still provides references for most of there stories).
Click to expand...

In most areas of life, people rely (because they have to) on the twin legal criteria of "on the balance of probability" (the standard of proof in civil cases) and "beyond reasonable doubt" (the standard in criminal cases).

I always laugh when anyone brings up the idea of objectivity in journalism, because it fails to address too many questions:

Who is the target audience?

What is the breadth of their experience?

How honest are they about what they are willing to believe?

Will they buy the publication?

Who decides which stories to put in? (Editor, publisher....)

At my school, in the 60s, the VIth form common room (mostly 17 to 18 year olds) in my house subscribed (at my prompting) to both the North Vietnam Peace News and the British Union of Fascists newsletter. It taught everyone who bothered to read them that (a) not all papers report the same events and (b) that the same event may be reported in very different ways.

Believing everything you read in your favourite source, regardless of how it is 'fact-checked', and no matter how many people 'verify' it, is a recipe for severe hardening off the categories.

The Buddha is reputed to have said, "Test everything I say as a goldsmith tests refined gold, and if it does not accord with your own knowledge and experience, set it aside." Note 'set it aside', not 'reject it', because there is always the possibility that you may re-evaluate it in the light of further knowledge and experience.

Indeed, science works pretty much the same way: many things can neither be proven nor shown to be false -- until we know a bit more.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
aad said:
See what you've done, Roger?

"Don't believe everything you think."
Click to expand...

From the Cath Milne song, "Paranoia time in the town" (from memory: I apologize to her if it's out of sequence):

Anything you do
Anything you say
Anything you think
Anything you feel

May be used
Against you

So it's paranoia time in the town,
Yes it's paranoia time in the town
They've taken what you've said and they've turned it around
With their dogs and their devices to track you down,
Track you down, track you down

You never know... o... o...
You never know... o... o...
You never know

Or sometimes you do.

Cheers,

R
 
Last edited:
Of course, you are not paranoid if they REALLY are out to get you.

In that case, you would be "aware" that they are out to get you.

Paranoia is much safer.
 
Just because they really are out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid as well.
 
The very fact that one has taken the trouble to join a forum and contribute to a thread implies that one has an opinion...but does that make one opinionated?

Michael
 
Believe whatever you want, just be humble in stating it and open to the possiblity you may be wrong. And do it civilly.

Easy , really.
 
Which is kind of where I was going...each to his own = multiple opinions = multiple answers.

Fine by me, I know I'm right!

Michael
 
"... or rejected them for reasons they can defend rationally."

Well put OP, Roger. Some years ago, I attended a seminary in Texas. The instructor I probably learned the most from was the one I disagreed with most often. He forced me to dig deep, hit the books and come back and logically, rationally articulate why I disagreed with his point of view. We're still great friends today (even though he's still wrong most of the time). *smirk*
 
Roger Hicks said:
No-one has all the answers. But I am constantly intrigued by the number of different answers (some credible, some not) that other RFF members can come up with.
Click to expand...

Compared to answers you get on other systems, the answers, advice, and opinions on this board tend to run on the high end of the credibility, reliability, and helpful-ness scales. Equipment, film, light meters, monopods, exposure, the list goes on and on about the questions I've asked here over the past 6 years (wow, been that long) and the quality of the responses is more often than not very high.

I can only think of one popular opinion that I ever found suspect, that which says that Vuescan is the one-size-fits-all universal solution for every possible known scanning problem. :)

Some others are iffy, but I think all of them are valid from the point of view of the responder, such as the age-old debate of how to work around the battery problem in the GIII.
 
I have heard Buddhist teachers who say check everything. You don't have to believe it even if the Buddha said it. You must question.
 
Are their lips moving?

Are their lips moving?

Was it tricky Dick that said "I accept the responsibility. .. ... but not the blame" ?
 
"I am not a crook."
"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."
"My wife wears a cloth coat."
"And so, effective at noon today...."
"Leonid, why are you driving so goddamned fast?" (this last one is imagined; Brehznev is reputed to have scared the crap out of ol' tricky dick when they went driving in a Lincoln that the US gave the comrade.)

Keith said:
So what did Richard Nixon say of any note?

Or need I ask? :D

politicans used to be so much more ... 'interesting!'
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom