First Blog

  Suppose a new concept, edict, or law comes your way. In simplified terms, you have four options,  rejection, acceptance, understanding,  and  belief . The “pusher” to anyone of these is your degree of doubt. Total doubt leads to rejection, while absolutely no doubt (or certainty) leads to belief. I’m not convinced the latter is absurd as claimed by Voltaire, as total belief a necessary state for the creation of or proof of new ideas. Others prefer to understand or at least try to understand the condition at hand. This illustrates partial doubt but a measure of conviction necessary for understanding. Finally, a state of resident doubt but required compliance leads us to acceptance. For example, in your work you may accept some rules of the employers but neither believe nor understand them. In politics, you will see much belief and rejection but little understanding. Many simply accept what is promoted.

Why is having hard conversations about the truth a good thing? Hard discussions about truth have many values.  To me, the most important is for all to become aware of its tricky nature.  It is posited as the last word on a subject, the finality we must accept. Finality is the keyword. In this way, it is used to silence further discussion.    "Truth" is used by all instructors, clergymen, politicians, and your friends - all the time. All promote their own views or truths. Hard discussions allow us to understand this, and not be so easily swept up into the truths of others, and not to be conflicted by moronic conversations about truth vs belief. You can have principles , such as “love thy neighbor,” or “theory A is it.” You can live by commandments , such as “Thou shall not kill.” It is always best to understand the differences between these and actual truth. Truth is ethereal, and that’s the truth. 😊 Nonetheless, we all want truth. We crave truth. We b

You may not have ESP, but you do have some equally important extra senses . All of us have special senses unavailable to machines or other living things. Not reading the future, or moving objects by pure thought, these senses are more important to you in almost every way. They are not called senses in normal parlay but without them, you’d have an empty existence. Far beyond taste, smell, touch, sight, and hearing, they carry you through the most difficult times and propel you to excellence and achievements amazing even yourself. They lift you from despair. They heal your broken heart. They enlighten your life's journey. The Paranormal Suppose you’ve just heard that a computer can “perceive” the cards of the standard paranormal deck.   You know squares, wavy lines, circles, stars, and the like.   You would say nonsense and say it quickly. Because if it could, you could.   And this is because the computer functions on algorithms and algorithms are written by peop

When I was much younger, like an undergrad, I’d go out with friends for maybe a pizza and the discussion would be enjoined.   We’d argue this way and that, about one view or another.   We’d argue on and on until the pizza was long gone and bedtime or study time was upon us. Few feelings were hurt by the other. After all, it was just opinions shot back and forth.   The critical value of an opinion is in its flux of belief . It can or could be changed. Today, it’s different. When venturing onto websites of columnists, especially those of contributors, opinions are no longer changeable.   They are fixed, hardened, even cast as metal. Modern students are about the same, most with cast-iron views, not to be changed by anyone, any way, anyhow. The point here is you can’t call it an opinion unless you can cite something that someone can do or say to change it.   It rare we see this. What is slapped down on the page is not opinion but absolute truth in the mind of the contributor

Friendship is a bond whose strength is measured in trust. ------------------------- Modern policy and justification.  When one side advocates some policy which works out poorly, there is never an admission is was wrong, or flawed, or anything.  The most common excuses are these: we didn’t go far enough; we didn’t spend enough; we didn’t message enough. The policy, however, is right! The policy belief is paramount.  Some sort of decision commitment  is involved, having little to do with outcomes.  Belief, you may agree, is a lot easier a sell than logic or evidence. It closes doors; it relaxes intellectual demand; it commands single-mindedness of thought.  We seem to have left behind the rational age of Voltaire, Laplace, and Newton, and entered into another universe where truth is decided beforehand. Huxley said it best as paraphrased in, “We live in a brave new world.” The ability to accept that a solution or method fails is essential for progress, personal, polit

Doubling down. Theory, ideology, faith, whatever it may be, we see now in current affairs the intransigence of public and scientific players the willingness to persevere with a policy or theory, of some position despite the evidence it  seems not to be working. The remedy is not to revise, readjust, or relegate the program or  position, but to double, even triple, down upon it.  It is true, they argue, we just haven't given enough time or resources to fulfill its benefits.  It doesn't matter the topic, ranging from health care, to green solutions, to capitalistic markets, adherents will not let go.  Their theory is correct, they contend, we just need to persevere along this path. Persistence is the by-word of all too many.  This country, founded greatly upon William James' concepts of  pragmatism, has reversed course to pure belief.   Now this leads us to an conundrum.  It is seemingly impossible to let go, reverse course, or reformulate.  Remarkably, this is a partic

As was recently posted on LinkedIn by Dr. Ya'akov Sloman,  "Scientific Realism, in the general case, is the idea that theories developed by the scientific method match what is "really" in the world. That is, if a theory has predictive value it means that what the theory describes actually exists in the world. In the particulars, every philosopher who considers this idea has variations on it, but the core is the epistemic certainty, the idea that what we know from successful scientific theories (those with predictive power) is not just a model that is internally consistent, rather it is a direct description of things-as-they-are." Is it possible to justify this position without resort to simple optimism or outright faith-based arguments?" Sounds long and philosophical.  Yet this simple post generated a blizzard of response.  Indeed, if you've been reading this column, there is almost nothing true or what you believe is true without some belief or faith