Michael M. Butler wrote:
>>the leap from "I just figure I don't have enough data
to think further than the data" to "I like to be told what
to think":<<
Hmm. I'm a very deep thinker, in that I 'always' read
between the lines. My own mother hates me because I can
quote "read her thoughts" and bluntly tell her what she
really feels and means despite what she think she says or
wants me to think. She claims it's not fair, that she should
be free to lie to me whenever she wants. Words to me are
only references to thought, like a line in space. So the
point is I will read into every gesture and word for
interpretation of what I think is the real thought
(conscious or otherwise).
With that thought descriptive profile of myself out of the
way (for future reference if wondering what's the validity)
here is how I linked "I just figure I don't have enough data
to think further than the data" to "I like to be told what
to think":
"I just figure I don't have enough data to think further
than the data." I associated 'the data' with 'known facts in
relation to what is being addressed'. I then thought of the
example case, "What if I'm trying to explain a phenomena or
other unknown?" The data I have is not enough to come to a
conclusion so I make an educated guess as to the data I
would need and to what properties it would contain.
You see, I thought beyond the data. If no one thought beyond
the data we wouldn't have useful scientific theories, using
the data we have to guess about data we don't have then
testing those guesses when/if the data is ever found or is
found for a different guess. People who do this think for
themselves, people who don't rely on others to think for
them.
Because you said "I just figure I don't have enough data to
think further than the data," this implies you actually
don't think further than the data. (It implies because you
said you don't have enough info to think further, NOT
therefor you don't think further).
>From this implied premise I concluded that sense you don't
think beyond the data you must get data from somewhere,
which means you must get it from people who tell you.
Note: This does not mean you couldn't stumble across the
data, but it does mean you couldn't look for the data. You
couldn't look for the data because you don't know what
you're looking for (which means you couldn't make the valid
association needed for a correct conclusion), and you
couldn't know what you're looking for because you don't know
the properties of the data for which you would have thought
of if you thought beyond the original data.
I made the association from 'I' to 'we' because 'we as a
group' usually discuss ways of living and philosophies to
hold which work for us and the whole reason for sharing such
issues is for others to adopt them.
Anyway, so there it is. I wasn't trying to be rude (which
I'm sure you already know) just looking for confirmation or
clarity, which is why it was the form of a question not a
statement. I don't butter up my statements or clarify my
thoughts too often because it would take hours sometimes.
For example this writing took over 20 minutes and I made and
understood the associations in a half second. I think most
people do this though which makes for speedier discussions,
but I don't mind clarifying things, when people have no clue
what I'm talking about or what my point is, etc.. as long as
they're first reading between my lines. Thanks.
Clint O'Dell http://clintodell.freeservers.com
______________________________________________________________________
Get Visto.com! Private groups, event calendars, email, and much more.
Visto.com. Life on the Dot.
Check it out @ http://www.visto.com/info
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:37 MDT