First Blog

What is the meaning of “no amount of evidence will ever persuade a fool”? This statement has a purpose for those unconvinced or persuaded by evidence. You give the most perfect data or perfect reasoning about a topic and the recipient remains unconvinced. The unwritten implication is that he/she then must be a fool. Therefore, the statement is used to establish this: “If you accept no evidence, you must be a fool.” The inability by others (i.e. you, me, et al.) to persuade even very intelligent people has been rampant over all of time, in science, politics, philosophy, religion, even in war. The nifty little aphorism in this question allows us to indirectly call them fools. Second hand insults, as it were. Pretty neat! For example, Democrats think of Republicans as fools because they are unpersuaded by (their) evidence.  And vice-versa. In times past, Lutherans thought of Catholics in the same way – using the word “heretic.” And vice-versa. New science is often promot

Social media : The dangers of  highly misunderstood social  media are without historical precedent.  They is scarcely research, and few case studies.   They allow contact with select groups with no possible reflection, with no possible oversight, and with only a slight possibility of correction.  They allow the naïve to be converted to almost any persuasion. They are used to bully others, sometimes to the act of suicide.  The worst possible outcome is a populace convinced by errant arguments onto a pathway of destruction.  This allows results generated by the clever miscreant to recruit the ignorant toward societal demise.  Principles from hundreds of generations past are cast aside in favor of an emotional construction of truth. Base principles seem to have disappeared.  On top of all that social media operators mine all subscribers for information about them and at minimum their possible buying habits, possible political beliefs, and religious affiliations.  This is an aspec