We were talking in chat last night about the "dangers" of certainty and declaratory statements that don't allow for evolution of thought or learning ~ I'm a big believer in life-long learning ~ and my own thinking is that there has to be wiggle room in order to learn ~ I don't mean wiggle room in facts, but in interpretation ~ I easily accept that there will always be people who know more than I do about too-many-to-count things ~

What say you?

Sooz

there will always be people who know more than I do about too-many-to-count things
What say you?

What would you like to knowÉ

There would be no point in having discussions if we were not going to consider the other's point of view, and shape out own by what we learn. If you are so certain, all you can do is pontificate, and that is not interaction. You are alone.

You are alone.

It is indeed lonely when one is always right.

totally. there is no conversation without disagreement. only nodding minions.

There`s something to be said for stirthepotism.

I can't even say stirthepotism.

But you can type it, queenie ~

Sooz

I think this was the offshoot of the discussion on indecision. I said that I think indecision is a decision.

Basically, it says I am uncertain of the right path and I am not ready to make a decision on this issue at this time. "I don't know" is legitimate, and it is a shame when people pretend they know when we don't.

Rarely in life can we act with 100 percent certainty because life is fluid and random and well, more of a Woody Allen movie than a James Cameron one.

But the thing is that you do have to be pretty much certain about some things before you can even start discussing anything.
For example, there is no point in even attempting to discuss something with someone who is simply indifferent to the rules of logic. While it might be possible to question some of those rules, that could only be done by reference to other rules which would have to be accepted.

That is, there are degrees of certainty, and some certainties are pretty much necessary if we are going to understand the world.
2+2=4 is a good start.

I agree with that cattleman. Some of the most certain people don't look at the facts or evidence that supports any argument.

That just know it's true, because they believe it's true.

sooz's remark about interpretation pretty much leaves this particular discussion, itself, up for interpretation as you can see from Cattleman's post. Facts vs interpretation. 2+2=4 vs when life begins.

We all come from a lifetime of experiences that will affect our interpretation of events, sometimes very differently. As the saying goes "it's all a matter of perspective". As we age, our interpretations become more static about some things.

There are some people who will never be able to sell me on their interpretations. Religious people try to do that all the time and right now the gun nuts are trying that too.

I can always try to understand other's interpretations, or at least where they come from. That doesn't mean that I will adopt theirs or reconsider mine. At an impasse, we just have to agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that, at least for me.

I dunno. Judging from the content on the plethora of discussion boards on the internet, I'd say not considering the other guy's point of view is pretty much the norm.

"if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

I think for sure there must be wiggle room and evolution of thought in a discussion/conversation...as Kathy said, that is what promotes interaction. What I have seen (fortunately not too often on this board) is that in the discussions on some boards the conversation often becomes heated, with one party or another getting insulted and the flow of thought becomes stymied...

Then often there is the situation where members "pat each other on the back" for making statements that the other members "approve" of, becoming as Mac said "nodding minions" while whoever offers an "opposing/oppositional" opinion is often ostracized as being bigotted or pontificating because their stance is so "offensive" or against the mainstream of opinion of the group...and the "opposing"view is rejected without any discussion...

Sometimes this situation developes as a direct result of the opposing opinion not being "couched" in proper verbage so as to win the attention of the mainstream...IOWs, the "oppositional" opinion might indeed have a nugget or two of good thoughtful ideas, but its presentation is so obnoxious that the nuggets are lost...eg. the NRAs stance for armed security in the school and public places: the commercial was so abrasive that the nugget of the need for armed security was virtually lost on the mainstream as it reacted in wrath...

Nothing is absolutely certain: But as each shares what they view as certainty, perhaps along with more careful speech we might exercise more careful listening so as to at least generate more thoughtful ideas...

In Social Work class the other day I was talking about Mental Retardation and was chastised by a class member that you can't call it that any more; it's developmentally disabled.

I replied, "Yes, it is but on Axis 2 of the DSM it is still termed Mental Retardation. The ARC was The Association for Retarded Citizens, I did not mean it in any way as disrepect."

The terminology for Native Americans has caused me grief too. One of the best articles on Human Trafficking across cultures that I want my class to read is Sex Trafficking of American Indian Women and Girls in Minnesota. It's a 2008 article.

This is a little different than what you were saying I think. I think that you are saying that in the midst of the repulsive stuff put foreward, there is some actually helpful stuff and we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

the nugget of the need for armed security was virtually lost on the mainstream as it reacted in wrath...

I disagree totally with that Cannalee. But then the question becomes how might we decide between my view and yours? And there's no chance of us doing that unless we can arrive at some common ground somewhere.

For me that "common ground" is "does such a policy actually work"? Where is the evidence that it does or doesn't? To you it might seem intuitively obvious that it would, but for me its just as intuitively obvious that it wouldn't. What we need are the facts.

See, as far as I'm concerned THAT is a "certainty". The way to solve differences of opinion about the empirical world works is by looking at the world, not by relying on what seems "obvious".

This is a little different than what you were saying I think. I think that you are saying that in the midst of the repulsive stuff put foreward, there is some actually helpful stuff and we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It will ever be so in forums such as this. No way to tell facial expressions, interrupt so as to understand a point or be around to ask pointed questions directly after a post has been made before it gets lost in a dozen other posts. Such is the internet.

The same thing happened way before the internet, via letters. I can quickly pull one memory from years ago with my Grandmother and my Mom. Stupid misunderstanding because of the wording of the letter and ensuing reply. That was when long distance calls were $2+/minute, so it's not like you could/would just pick up the phone to discuss something like that.

I am the first to admit to a "simplistic" mind and to failure on my part to see all the nuances of situations and conversations...and sometimes in my effort to "cut through the chase" I step on toes or am bluntly offensive when I don't mean to be offensive; sometimes i am so "certain"of my position that one could indeed accuse me of "pontification": siiigh--in this case I am afraid this might be the case. For sure we need to know all the facts of a given situation to make an intelligent judgement call, but sometimes the urgency of the situation makes action emergent..
I (some will be surprised to hear!) actually do not believe that every American has a right to bear arms or that every American should own a gun...(both of my late hubbies are turning over in their graves!) I happen to think that gun ownership has such a grave responsibility that only LE persons should indeed own guns...but that's my view. I also happen to think that it will be next to impossible to disarm the criminal/lunatic elements of our society and I think there will be more and more lunacy with guns and shooting events until mental health care is easily accessible to all Americans. But not all lunatics want cured.

The way I see it, it's open season on our babies...and gun control and mental health care will both take time--with our Congress a lot of time, and meanwhile the babies need protection. Just because one lone security officer was outgunned at Columbine does not seem like sufficient rebuttal to the call for armed LE at our schools--to me armed LE officers seems like the most expedient reaction to Sandy Hook until more long term laws and actions can be implemented. Sitting around talking about it while kids are massacred in school or 6 yr olds are snatched off of school buses with dead drivers doesn't seem to me to be smart or efficient--I don't mean to mock conversation, just saying that while we are talking the babies are targets of the lunatic fringe. And recent news events would seem to indicate the validity of my statement.

They are the target of a "lunatic fringe" with GUNS!

But what are the facts? Are schools with armed security guards less likely to have these incidents?

Colleges are also a frequent target. Dont they have armed security guards?

For sure the babies are targets of lunatics packing guns...I completely agree...and perhaps in time our society can become a gunless society (perhaps kind of like that society in that ol movie Demolition Man but meanwhile today the babes need protection...and no, I don't think armed security is the only answer or even perhaps the best answer, but it is the most expedient quick answer until other options can be implemented...

And how do you then un-implement it once even more guns are out there

Re certainly: In most cases when people say "I know this and I know that" they're really saying "I am convinced of this and that".

Certainty can be very uncertain.

Certainly.