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.
Well, you are going to have to pick one and stick to it. At least read up on them. I have no idea what you mean by "society's approach." Basically, we take what we are told on the basis that people mainly mean well and speak the truth. This is not always true, and we must be sure to constantly compare what we are told with what we find our for ourselves, to have some idea of who is telling us the truth. The method is not corrupt. People who lie are corrupt. And people who are not willing to admit the truth, even to themselves, are corrupt.
Probability is exclusively a quantiative concept. If there are no numbers, there is no probability. And truth does not have fractional existence. Either something is true, or it is false. Nature doesn't know how to lie or to have mixed feelings. In any case, for practical necessity, you have to ACT as though something was true or false, not that it may "mostly" be true. Here is what appears to be a hand grenade. Is it live or is it a dummy? You have to act one way or the other; there is no middle ground. (This, by the way, is the secret to safe handling of firearms and weapons in general.)
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.
Well, you are going to have to pick one and stick to it. At least read up on them. I have no idea what you mean by "society's approach." Basically, we take what we are told on the basis that people mainly mean well and speak the truth. This is not always true, and we must be sure to constantly compare what we are told with what we find our for ourselves, to have some idea of who is telling us the truth. The method is not corrupt. People who lie are corrupt. And people who are not willing to admit the truth, even to themselves, are corrupt.
Probability is exclusively a quantiative concept. If there are no numbers, there is no probability. And truth does not have fractional existence. Either something is true, or it is false. Nature doesn't know how to lie or to have mixed feelings. In any case, for practical necessity, you have to ACT as though something was true or false, not that it may "mostly" be true. Here is what appears to be a hand grenade. Is it live or is it a dummy? You have to act one way or the other; there is no middle ground. (This, by the way, is the secret to safe handling of firearms and weapons in general.)