=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Lying for Columbine
Log In to post a reply
91 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
stray
stray
2057 posts

Re: Lying for Columbine
Oct 08, 2003, 19:33
twat! lets break it down. The sarcasm is humour, sorry if you cant handle the stuff.

Right. Lets assume there are different types of thinking (there aren't, but lets just play along). One type would be no better than any other type when it comes to getting at the, lets call it, Truth. Why ? Well, because you can never be 100% that you have and understand every single variable that contributes to the issue. So, you'll always be applying your 'rational' type of thinking to an incomplete set of data. The type of thining in no way compensates for this flaw. And, as you don't have every variable, you can never truly judge the weight/importance of the variables your missing.

On a surface level this is, as Morfe has said a few times in these tail chasing thread, how people fit the facts to their theories. Well, thats what any thinking does, even if it creates a discovery or a personal epiphany, there is no real definite. Therefore there are no different types of thinking, and therefore no possible 'this kind of analysis is better than that kind'. There is only approximations that fall within acceptable tolerances, nothing else. Okay ?

Analysis, thats the word that should be used, not thought. It's analysis we're dealing with here, not thought types. Or the word abstraction if you really want to get at the fundamental flaw in this intellectual wanking.
In reply to:
Re: Lying for Columbine (Dog 3000)		 Replies:
Re: Lying for Columbine (stray)
Re: Lying for Columbine (Dog 3000)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index