Sunday, January 1, 2017

ETHICS AND MORALITY- LOOKING FOR THE REAL MEASURE OF RIGHT OR WRONG. Part 1.

Mountain Road, Winding Road, Travel

As the November Election approaches, Politics Dominate the airways. Be it TV, Radio, The Internet etc., We are Bombarded by ads telling us who is the most worthy of support, and which Party \Ideology will lead us towards even greater Wealth and Posterity.

But beware, other ads tell us.Those who Oppose our way of life support Policies that will lead to Poverty, Persecution, and, even worse, our enemies Controlling and Dominating the Lives of all Freedom Loving Americans.

Freedom and Posterity , or, Death and Destruction. There never seems to be any middle ground. We either support one side or the other, and hope that this "Coin Flip" ends up to be beneficial, at least to our way of thinking.

However, is there a way to look at the Issues, Parties, and Candidates that can give us a deeper understanding of what LIES BEHIND THE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE, AND WHY THESE CHOICES ARE A REFLECTION OF THE TRUE NATURE OF THOSE WHO SUPPORT THEM.

This is not just a query about which side of an Issue is being supported, or why this Candidate or that Candidate is best suited for the office being sought.  It is a Question of what brought each and every individual to the point of making a choice, that if it came to fruition, they and every one else would have to live with.

Let us start off with the Most Basic of Questions: You are walking down the street, and you are approached by another Individual. It so happens that this individual appears to be of the same gender, age, and race, as yourself, with the same general appearance. This person stops you and begins to speak...

WHAT DO YOU DO?





ETHICS AND MORALITY. RIGHTS- WHAT THEY ARE, AND WHAT THEY ARE NOT. PT 1.

There is perhaps no more important word, when we discuss such issues as Freedom of Choice, Protection from Governmental Interference into our lives and, yes, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Yet, the definition of RIGHTS seems to be something many don't understand. 

Even more alarmingly, there are those who define the term in different ways at different times, depending on the agenda they are supporting in the latest election cycle.

The goal of this article is to define what is meant when the word RIGHTS is used properly, and to shed light on the improper usage of the term.

Decision, Choice, Path, Road

In general terms, a RIGHT can be referenced and defined in several ways:

-  A Protection against Persecution for certain behaviors, that an individual or group may engage in.

-  The ability to make decisions about ones' own life, free of improper
influence or malicious retribution.

-  Protecting groups that are recognized legally, from hostile actions by those
who desire to inflict harm upon the members, without just cause.

-  Punishment administered to any individual, Either by Government, Social Organization, or Employer must be justified through defined procedures that allow the individual an opportunity to provide a proper defense to any and all charges. Further, that judgment will be based on facts and evidence that were gathered in a prescribed manner.  Of course, the degree to which these are implemented differs from the Public to the Private sector.

When speaking of Rights that are found in the Private Sector, we usually find them to be creations of contractual agreements between Employer and Employee, or in By-Laws that are part of a fraternal organizations code of conduct for members. By their very nature, these Rights affect a very select group.

This is not true in the Public Sector.
End of PT 1.  

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? PART 1.



As the Controversy Continues over GLOBAL WARMING, THE POLITICS OF THE SUBJECT ARE PUSHING ASIDE WHAT REALLY COUNTS, LEAVING US WITH THE FOLLOWING;

ARE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, LOGIC, AND CRITICAL THINKING COMING UNDER ATTACK BY THOSE PUSHING A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT IS ENTIRELY SELF- SERVING, AND CARES NOTHING ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION?

This Article is not going to Address the GLOBAL WARMING Controversy Itself, but will look at THE PROCESSES BEING USED TO ARRIVE AT THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS BEING OFFERED TO BEST EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FIND THE TRUTH ABOUT ANY NATURAL PHENOMENA, AND WHAT WILL LEAD US TO REAL ANSWERS INSTEAD OF BOGUS ASSERTIONS.

First, a Few Guidelines.

-  If one side spends most of its Time and Energy Attempting to Poke Holes in the Oppositions Theories, Evidence, and Conclusions, and Little on its Own Arguments that Support Their Position, IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LITTLE TO OFFER.

-  Arguing Motivations is a Meaningless Waste of Time.  The SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A VALUE BASED WAY OF LOOKING AT THE NATURAL WORLD.  LIKE THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING,  THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ACTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE REASONS BEHIND THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS.

-  What is the Source of the Evidence, Testimony, and Opinions being offered? For Example, Are they Taken From Peer Reviewed Material that has been Heavily Examined and Scrutinized for any Procedural Mistakes?

FINALLY, WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WOULD EITHER SIDE CONSIDER IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE SUBJECT?

END PART 1.

QUICK HITTERS. POST #6. JUDGING "CANDIDATE SPEAK." PT 1.

As election day rapidly approaches in the U.S., T.V. Stations are filled with campaign adds. Can we cut through what is being said, and evaluate the real meaning behind the words?  Perhaps, we should find out.

Read the following, and see how much of what you have seen and heard is true.


#1-  "The Policy of ...... has failed, I am against it."
       "The Program of.... has been a success, we should continue it."

Whenever you have a Candidate addressing an issue in the above manner, and goes little or no further, you are left with a:

STAGE 1 ASSERTION:  NO SUPPORTING DATA. -  Stating that any program or policy has succeeded or failed, is a statement of what the Candidate claims to be true. HOWEVER, WITHOUT BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTO THE HOW AND WHY SUCH A DECISION WAS ARRIVED AT, THE JUDGMENT IS MEANINGLESS.  IT MAY BE PURELY POLITICAL IN NATURE, SINCE SUPPORTING INFORMATION BACKING IT UP IS ABSENT. 

#2-  "Most Americans are against...... so I do not support it."
       "The American people have spoken, and........... is something they want."

If the Candidate relies on public opinion polls to pass judgment on an issue, you have a:

STAGE 2 ASSERTION:  THE MAJORITY RULES?
LOOK FOR PT 2.

Date-  10/24/2014.

QUICK HITTERS. WHAT REALITY T.V. HAS TAUGHT ME. PT 1.

-  That it is Easy to sound Intelligent
when you have no Opposition to Balance the Garbage you are spreading over the Airways.

-  No Matter how Serious and Relevant the Subject Matter may be, which Includes Confronting Social Problems and Injustice, it can still be Lowered into the Cesspool of Ignorance, Stupidity, and Irrationality by Those chosen to Appear and Speak on Screen.

-  No Matter how WELL- EDUCATED, CREDENTIALED, OR EXPERIENCED THE HOST IS, THEIR ABILITY TO STOOP TO NEW LOWS IN MINDLESS GOSSIP, BAD INFORMATION, AND EXPLOITING THE WEAK AND MENTALLY FRAGILE CAN STAND WITH ANY SUPER MARKET TABLOID.


-  That Many People still get Their Information about Important Subjects like Science and Medicine from Celebrities and Entertainers, who may know no more about the Topic Than your Pet Dog and Cat.

-  That Being Well Spoken, Informed, and Tolerant is being Phased Out when considering Guests.  Instead we get Vulgar, Uneducated, and Confrontational.







FEATURE ARTICLES- THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. PT 1.


Stupid, Dumb, Thinking, Brain, Symbol

Sometimes you may be watching a Program Dealing with a Controversial Topic, and Hear Words or Phrases that sound PROFOUND OR INSIGHTFUL.

Their Use Could Be an attempt to Make the Speaker sound Knowledgeable and Authoritative. However, If you pay attention to what is being said, you will often find an Individual Speaking about a Topic Who has a Fundamental Lack of Understanding about the the SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR PROPER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.

 This is ESPECIALLY TRUE IF YOU TUNE INTO ONE OF THE CABLE TELEVISION SHOWS THAT ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ONE OF THEIR MANY SUBJECTS OR TOPICS. ( i.e. UFOS, ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS, GHOSTS, CRYPTIDS etc.)

 I'll be Describing a Few from Time to Time. See if you can spot Them the Next Time Your Channel Surfing.

 "SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN HOW THIS WAS DONE."- Is an Often Used Phrase that seems to Indicate that the Discipline of Science is Stumped by some INCREDIBLE FIND OR DISCOVERY, SO THE PSEUDOSCIENCE BEING PUSHED ON THE SHOW PROVIDES THE REAL ANSWERS.

 Intellectual Discipline does not allow Science to make Uninformed or Unwarranted Conclusions, or Offer Opinions and Speculations that Lack any Basis in Reality. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD does not Mean offering Any and All Possible Solutions, AND MAINTAINING THAT THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY VALID.

 The Tools of Proper Scientific Study, Together with the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking;

SYSTEMATICALLY GATHERS EVIDENCE THROUGH PROPER AND SET METHODS TO AVOID CONTAMINATION, OBSERVATIONAL ERROR, AND CONFORMATION BIAS. THIS ALLOWS FOR PROPER EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION, FREE OF PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.

 The Phrase; "WE MUST GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE TAKES US", IS ENTIRELY TRUE. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T MEAN IGNORING DATA AND HYPOTHESES THAT CAN BE REASONABLY INFERRED FROM OBSERVATION AND TESTING, IN FAVOR OF SPECULATIVE IDEAS THAT HAVE NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT CAN WITHSTAND EVEN THE MOST CURSORY EVALUATION.

 This Leaves us the Most Telling Difference BETWEEN REAL SCIENCE VS PSEUDOSCIENCE; REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY PROPERLY GATHERS, STUDIES AND INTERPRETS ALL AVAILABLE DATA TO FORM CONCLUSIONS THAT EXPLAIN WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND, OR HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT ALL REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES.

PSEUDOSCIENCE STARTS WITH A CONCLUSION, (THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD), AND TRIES TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. THIS IS USUALLY DONE:

- BY MISHANDLING OR MISIDENTIFYING AVAILABLE DATA.
- ASSERTING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
- IGNORING RELATIVE DATA.
- FAILING TO UNDERSTAND, OR LACKING KNOWLEDGE OF NATURAL LAW. 
- INCORRECT REPORTING OF SPECIFIC EVENTS, EITHER BY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR INSUFFICIENT RESEARCH.
 ... AMONG OTHER THINGS.
 Look for Specific Examples in Future Posts.

WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media. PSEUDOSCIENCE ON TELEVISION- LOGIC AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD NEED NOT APPLY. PT 14.

Extraterrestrial, Alien, Alie, Area 51

So what Type of Individual Viewer watches PSEUDOSCIENCE TELEVISION, and actually believes They are Watching Real Science in Action?

Basically, They Could Belong to the Same Category of Individuals That:

-  Think Homeopathy and Naturopathy are Legitimate Medical Disciplines.

                         OR

-  Believe That following the Scientific Method is OK, as long as it Supports your Pre-Conceived Conclusions.

                         OR

-  Accepts Conspiracy Theories as Prevalent, Malicious, and the Main Reason FACTUAL AND TESTABLE DATA is Lacking to Support the REAL TRUTH, WHICH "THEY" DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT. ( "THEY", Usually Means One or More of the Following;  Certain Government Agencies, The Scientific Establishment, The Military, The American Medical Association and Its Members, Corporate America Etc.  This Line of Thinking can also Include such Extreme Ideas as;  Alien Beings from Other Planets, Reptoids, Other Dimension Visitation... and so on.)

You can Sometimes Identify Someone with this WORLD VIEW BY THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS;

-  That the LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR VIEWPOINT IS TAKEN AS PROOF THAT SUCH MATERIAL IS BEING SUPPRESSED OR HIDDEN.

-  That any Attempt to Point out the Obvious Inadequacies in Their Opinions or Theories is Treated as an EVIL AND MALEVOLENT ACT OF THOSE WHO WORK FOR THE "DARK SIDE" OF HUMANITY, OBEYING THE ORDERS OF THE "POWERS THAT BE."

-  A Steadfast Refusal to Accept any Data, No Matter its Source, that Contradicts Their Chosen Way of Thinking.

Of course not every Fan of Pseudoscience Television meets all the Criteria Listed Above.

HOWEVER, THEY DO HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON...