I’ve learned to question everything. They were destroying huge chunks of cities with fire bombs before. Took longer, required more bombers, sometimes even worse effect.
I don’t know the answer. Neither does anyone except those directly involved.
You just don't want to know the answer. For you, there is no such thing as history. No such thing as the past. No such thing as people who were there. You are like an amnesiac. How do you even know anything about fire bombing? Don't you question that? How do you know we were fighting Japan? Don't you question that? How do you know anything? Do you know anything? Is there anything you don't question? Or are you just an intellectual sieve?---answers come in, and drain out the bottom.
I make statements like I know stuff - but I know almost nothing. We all know almost nothing, except our lived experience. Keep in mind that I mean know in the true sense of the word. Knowing as a part of my being - I’m not good at communicating it.
I don’t know any of what you’ve stated. You’re correct. But we have to function in a world of unknowns. I reach conclusions based on probabilities.
I have training in science, masters and PhD. I do research. But I’ve started to make an exerted effort to do what I was told to do during my training: question everything, including peer-reviewed literature, and textbooks. We were told to do that but it seems education often has the opposite effect, making students into NPC’s that don’t question anything so long as it’s peer reviewed.
If you are reaching conclusions based on "probabilities" then you really don't know what you are talking about. Assessment of probability requires far more data than people realize. And right or wrong is not a matter of probability; it is a matter of truth. (What people think of as "probability" is usually supposition. Unless it can be objectively calculated, it is not probability at all.)
But if you have a paradigm of epistemology that condemns you to endless searching for truth, but never to find it, you might reconsider your paradigm. It is perverse.
Not sure which approach to epistemology is valid - certainly not our society’s approach. It’s been corrupted over and over again.
The little I truly know comes from a deep spiritual place, not useful for determining the validity of dinosaurs, atoms, etc.
I should use a different word instead of probability. Its a way for me to communicate this idea to most non-statststicians. It’s an approach I take to make temporary conclusions until I have more ‘information’. Rather than concluding that something is 100% true or false, I conclude it’s somewhere in between.
I’ve learned to question everything. They were destroying huge chunks of cities with fire bombs before. Took longer, required more bombers, sometimes even worse effect.
I don’t know the answer. Neither does anyone except those directly involved.
You just don't want to know the answer. For you, there is no such thing as history. No such thing as the past. No such thing as people who were there. You are like an amnesiac. How do you even know anything about fire bombing? Don't you question that? How do you know we were fighting Japan? Don't you question that? How do you know anything? Do you know anything? Is there anything you don't question? Or are you just an intellectual sieve?---answers come in, and drain out the bottom.
I make statements like I know stuff - but I know almost nothing. We all know almost nothing, except our lived experience. Keep in mind that I mean know in the true sense of the word. Knowing as a part of my being - I’m not good at communicating it.
I don’t know any of what you’ve stated. You’re correct. But we have to function in a world of unknowns. I reach conclusions based on probabilities.
I have training in science, masters and PhD. I do research. But I’ve started to make an exerted effort to do what I was told to do during my training: question everything, including peer-reviewed literature, and textbooks. We were told to do that but it seems education often has the opposite effect, making students into NPC’s that don’t question anything so long as it’s peer reviewed.
If you are reaching conclusions based on "probabilities" then you really don't know what you are talking about. Assessment of probability requires far more data than people realize. And right or wrong is not a matter of probability; it is a matter of truth. (What people think of as "probability" is usually supposition. Unless it can be objectively calculated, it is not probability at all.)
But if you have a paradigm of epistemology that condemns you to endless searching for truth, but never to find it, you might reconsider your paradigm. It is perverse.
Not sure which approach to epistemology is valid - certainly not our society’s approach. It’s been corrupted over and over again.
The little I truly know comes from a deep spiritual place, not useful for determining the validity of dinosaurs, atoms, etc.
I should use a different word instead of probability. Its a way for me to communicate this idea to most non-statststicians. It’s an approach I take to make temporary conclusions until I have more ‘information’. Rather than concluding that something is 100% true or false, I conclude it’s somewhere in between.