Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (84268)	12/8/2011 1:51:27 AM
From: Joseph Silent	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217847

If ones experience holds true, should not the case be that other opinions are just plain ignorance of a fact? By my understanding, "true" and "true for you" are two different things. "true for you" suggests a fact that corresponds to your (personal) experience. How you or I can convince others of facts in our own personal experience is a challenging business, unless these are (for whatever reason; who knows why?) easily widely accepted. For example, it may be true for Rumsfeld that George W. Bush is a genius. But how will Rumsfeld convince me? If he cannot, would it mean I am ignorant of a fact? [It's entirely possible I am an ignorant slob for many reasons that have nothing to do with Rumsfeld :) ] "true" is a whole can of worms, because, at extreme, nobody knows what is true (if you operate at the level that Chuang Tzu is talking about). But at our mundane level, "true" may mean a widely accepted fact ..... wide enough that we get to thinking it is everybody's experience. Or it is something that is known to have happened. In either case, there will be those who do not accept it. Does it imply they are ignorant? The temptation is to say "yes, they are ignorant" (based on team size, convention, popularity, etc.), but I would not be so hasty. I was a bit taken aback when I learned, long ago, that even a mathematical proof is something that is only "generally accepted as true for a period of time" , i.e., in the sense that it can have a lifetime. It is entirely possible that the framework holding the fabric of the proof together falls apart at some point, when the framework evolves or changes. Please understand that I am talking above my head here because I have not spent time thinking in any depth about such things. J :)