 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Yes, but you should assume that it is opinion until you do verify it.... posted by Mrs. Piggy on October 26, 2002 at 19:32:34:
Your postion of cautious skepticism may be ideal, but I consider it
impractical and most likely unrealizable in any consistent manner.
Better to strike some midpoint twixt your postion and that of uncritical acceptance. Doubt if many at this forum would be
willing or even consistently capable of following your recommendation.
As for lying and presenting false data, this is obvious to most
discerning people. People can also be simply mistaken. Following
more a more practical, balanced modus operandi, I consider your
case in point to be the exception, my operating assumption would
be to economically assume that most people I interact with do indeed
see something approximating a blue sky. - AH
Follow Ups:
I don't analyze it, it happens naturally.
Someone who tells me the toothfairy left him a quarter, I will not believe them, even if they say it is true, actually even if it is true...because it doesn't match what I percieve to be true.Here is another example, you used in an earlier post:
Winning and losing verifiable recorded data:
in Japan, I have heard, that to win you must tie, a tie is the ultimate goal. (this may or may not be true) but it could be.
So the winner in your case would actually be a loser."One must take things with a grain of salt"
:o)
mp
If you're implying that analysis doesn't or can't occur on a subconsious level, which I take you consider "natural", then I have
to disagree. As for your comments on Japanese rules, I have a
friend who regularly toured the pro wrestling circuit in Japan (wrestling is big there) some years ago and the NWA rules are the
same there as the USA, no cross-cultural conflict or contradiction
in that regard. In chess, a lower-rated player who ties a
higher-rated player, could consider himorherself a winner of
sorts in a subjective sense and relish that, and vice-versa for the
higher-rated player, but objectively, the fact remains that, according to the rules of chess, the game was judged a tie and duly
recorded that way,
(neither lost nor won the game), even though
the lower-rated player gained rating points and the higher-rated
player lost them. The record book data is objective and not
subject to interpretation. - AH
are you implying that human perception does not play in the INTERPRETATION of facts?mp
things like expectation and selective bias. -AH
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
