When describing to someone the way something works we all seem to try to relate the present topic to something we think the audience has some experience with. Analogies for all sorts of odd things happen and although sometimes we hit on one that gets our idea across we most often launch into an extensive description of some odd part of the original topic which the analogy has the audience focused on. Even worse there are times where the analogy directs someone in the wrong direction entirely and confounds all involved.
The challenges with communicating on a level that both describes how something is or how it works and providing a consistent message to a wide range of reader or listeners is huge! It is this challenge which has created the debate on interpretations of ideas. It has been the source of grand arguments from religion, and politics to small misunderstandings about how to tie shoes. Communication for people is everything and yet we are unable in many ways to communicate our ideas accurately to one another.
I hope that I am able to be direct and unambiguous. I would like to have my thoughts clearly expressed and accurately received. I know however, the nuance and flavor of the written word lacks sometimes the emotional and emphatic qualities of a face to face conversation. so with that in mind I will state up front that clarification and reaction to my thoughts, ideas and statements will be forthcoming as needed.
With that said - I want to ask a question -
Why is it so hard to explain the difference between belief and empirical evidence? Logical thought and scientific method only go so far defining evidence. Belief seems to be a far more pervasive and contrary thing which is clung to disregarding anything to the contrary.
Good question! There was a time when empirical evidence was considered to be a secondary and in some respects an inferior form of proof. That said, there was an expectation that beliefs would be well-informed and grounded in both reality and experience. Have we become so enamored of cold equations and austere logic that we've lost the ability to grapple with differing opinions while analyzing facts?
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be no middle road for some...the focus is so sharp that even the hint of discussion elicits ire. Either cold calculus or blind belief, both are unforgiving, unbending, and inflexible. Either can be just as misleading or contrary..... compromise and the willingness too listen to other truths - but not compromise what you have knowledge of is a seemingly lost art in the era of sound bites and instant worldwide communications. I was taught that politeness and civility are virtuous and that to discuss with intelligence is an art comprised of listening and understanding as well as bringing personal experience, reflection and attention to the situation into the discussion. To consider each of the conflicting points of view presented and give credit and value rather than begin with discrediting and devaluing others thoughts. However it is unwise to argue with the unwilling until the personal peril or obvious fault become a personal reality. It seems that shifting our perspective can be a function of need, desire, or simple survival. It seems odd that some are so steadfast in obstinate ideas that they are willing to suffer immensely. Then there are others who seem to have a fair-weather attitude, whose alegiences shift at whim, who suffer as much or more.... Neither type seems to be the better for these actions. Neither seem to have learned the art of learning in a constantly changing landscape.
ReplyDeleteEheu! My first reply disappeared somewhere. Maybe a more succinct reply will be more comprehensible in any case. How do we better teach people to distinguish between belief and empirical evidence? Perhaps by allowing the freedom to fail; the nanny state has gone past dispensing compassion and has become oppressive. Of course that's merely one person's opinion.
ReplyDeleteWe no longer teach or value the qualities of moderation and civility, and we all suffer from the effects. I think, too, that the "steadfast obstinate" may be fearful, and the "fair-weather" types suffering from a surfeit of options. We live in a far larger, seemingly ever-changing imaginative universe than did our ancestors.
I know the universe is the same old universe - we have become more adept at not having to spend our time surviving and as a result have reversed the amount of time needed to survive with the amount of time we have for a myriad of other things. Things which if looked at in depth may not be as important as we seem to wish them to be. Many of the "manners" and courtesy that could be known as civility have been over run by the hectic pace at which we perceive our world moving. There are no longer times where agreed upon etiquette stipulates a moratorium on certain activity. It's all the time any time day or night just get it done!
ReplyDeleteWe have run roughshod over simply enjoying our new found leisure not having to scrape out an existence to simply survive. And replaced it with ten thousand things as stressful and confusing. The wonders of our universe and our curiosity have driven us to explore and conquer our small planet perhaps not for the best in some ways and still we push for more. I know that we - the mass of humanity - are as resourceful and clever as ever we were - in the same breath - as ignorant and clumsy. We are as children exploring for the first time a new world - even though we are the product of the one we find ourselves in...... the same old universe through new eyes - that perspective thing......