breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 862

jmfbahciv

Oh, is that what you think I'm saying? Oh, no wonder you got slightly "upset"...

No, sorry...exactly the opposite...couldn't be further from the truth...I'm pleading FOR the Aristotle Descartesean evidence-based mindset...not against it...

This is NOT at all at odds with also asking for the possibility of "out of the box" thinking...

On the contrary, Darwin was a "heretic"...as was Copernicus...Edison was laughed at because, as "orthodoxy" knew, "it'll never work!"...Einstein said Newton was wrong and the theory of relativity became one of the most tested theories of all time (most of them were, by the way, trying to prove that Einstein was wrong, as he challenged the "orthodoxy" of "infallible god" Newton, who had reigned supreme for centuries)...Galileo was also deemed a "heretic"...blah-blah-blah...

"Objectivity" is not something that, in fact, a single person can possess...individuals are subjects and, hence, always "subjective" in thought and action, by definition..."objectivity" is obtained through the commonality of "subjective" views, to attempt to divine the "object" separate from the "subject"...

I look from one direction and say that the object "is a square"...you look from another angle and say "the object is a rectangle"...another says "it is three diamond-like shapes"...these are all "subjective" views, none is truly right, none is truly wrong...

The "objective" view analyses the three "subjective" views - square, rectangle, three diamond-like shapes - and then analyses that I was viewing the object "head on", you from the side, the other person from above and to the side looking down at it at 45 degrees...

The "object" is an elongated cuboid...you cannot possess "objectivity" alone...without your opinion, the false conclusion of "a regular cube" could have been reached...

Hence, as with conducting a statistical survey, the MORE results, the better...ask more people to take the "survey", the more "representative" and "precise" the conclusions are likely to be...

A person is a single "subject"...their views, alone, can only be "subjective"...only in all opinions and all perspectives and all views being voiced can the "objective" reality be divined...the "signal" pulled out from all the "noise"...the more voices, the more "precision" we can examine reality with...

You do not become "objective" by pulling on a white lab coat...you become "objective" when you practice the Descartesean principle of "utter tolerance": You collect data and evidence - whatever the source - and pull the truth out of the "wreckage" of erroneous opinions...one concludes on NOTHING but the evidence...if there is no evidence, then there is NO CONCLUSION ("absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"; One does NOT conclude that it does not exist...one concludes that "I do not know, for the evidence is not before me")...

The true "scientific method", as prescribed by Descartes, is that of, as I say, "ultimate tolerance"...no opinion is "out of bounds" to be voiced...a "current consensus opinion" (Newton) must be dropped the instant contrary evidence is provided (Einstein)...one should not "grow attached" to any particular "theory"...the door must always be held open for others - EVIDENCE and EVIDENCE ALONE proves the worth of their word - at any point, to demonstrate the "error" in consensus thinking...

If this were not practiced, then Einstein's "relativity" could not have "refined" Newton's view of the universe...and we would be operating now on the WRONG "theory"...

If this were not practiced, Darwin's "evolution" would be silenced by "Creationism"...and we would be operating now on the WRONG "theory"...

Descartes - the "scientific method" - implicitly suggests this "ultimate tolerance"...a "humility" that no "theory", of any "emotional attachment" or "popularity", can last if there is EVIDENCE to the contrary...a "detachment" of one's self - putting "subjectivity" to one side to attempt to divine the "objective" out from all the "noise" of the world - and any "opinion" or "motivation" or whatever that could cloud one's judgement...

On the contrary, I consistently always argue for Liberty, tolerance and education...and, as such, I find there to be no greater insult than "Nazi", "fascist", "censor" and the like, which you appear to be accusing me of...

Though, you present no EVIDENCE for your case whatsoever, as yet...you convict me in a "kangaroo court" where you are judge, jury and ender alone...you wish to silence, which is a form of "censorship": A denial of the means to acquire EVIDENCE...you do not explicitly specify the "charges" by which this "show trial" of yours Hopes to convict me (check law: A foundational right of the accused is to know on what grounds they face the "court", as there is no means of FAIR "defence" when you do not even know the "crime" you have been accused of committing)...

Take a read of the Magna Carta or the American Consbreastution sometime...thus far, you demonstrate "fascism" in far greater degree than I have...an intolerance...

I look forward to hearing your response ("right of reply" is arguably as equally important as "freedom of speech"...to ask the court for "appeal", if EVIDENCE of a wrongful verdict can be shown)...

"Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire (168 plus 14 - 1778)

Beth :)