Within everything accepted, you’ll find everything that is overlooked.
Few things I find are more intellectually stimulating than the macro evaluation of accepted theory. Within the framework of all that is accepted, there exist the logical structures of all that is misunderstood. These indicators of fallacious reasoning are sometimes rather large, like mountains appearing on a plane, others are more humble, subtle molehills that escape sight if the eye isn’t keen. Science and its methods have become the surveyors of this landscape, conquering these mountains and mapping all that we see. The elegant process of the scientific method is rooted in the ability to question what is misunderstood, to evaluate what appears to be and decipher what in fact is. The many paths of logical fallacy create a difficult but conquerable barrier. New ground is often mapped by those who venture further in one direction, specializing, dissecting through scrupulous reasoning and reporting. The various fields of Science have created a symphonic collage of our world. Every day scientific understanding expands into new areas, continually questioning, hypothesizing and growing in all directions, hopefully reaching the point where we’ve mapped the entire plane, and the mysteries of our universe are known.
If mankind has one gift greater than all others, it is my belief that gift is curiosity, its only true competitor being reason, together shaping all that we see as beautiful around us. I am a naturally curious person, and am humbly skeptical of everything, including my own reasoning. I do not plan to write much about myself, but as this is my first post, I’d ask if you’re reading this, to humbly oblige me the opportunity to establish my school of thought, and subsequently the framework upon which I plan to develop this blog.
It has come to my reasoning that all which plagues the progress of rationale thought is the stake that men/women have in the value of their beliefs. I do not necessarily mean theologically, or purely scientifically. A person justifies their decisions by what they hold to be true. The ability for a person to feel they’ve made a moral, and correct choice is predisposed in the acceptance that what they know to be true, in fact is. While this is arguably necessary for a functional society, it’s adverse effect is the bias it creates in reason. One cannot be moral, as moral is defined, if one holds no established perspective on what is right. Morality though, in terms of social interaction is obviously necessary for a functional and free society, so this cost is acceptable when serving its social purpose. This behavior though is at the core of what we identify with as making us human, and its implications span all areas of our life. This is not meant to call into question the necessity of morality, rather to illustrate what I’ve attempted to separate from my school of thought in order to pursue reason in a degree not allowable otherwise. This is to say, and I cannot mean this more, I do not care if I’m correct. This blog’s purpose is not to assert any claim to greater understanding.
In context to this blog’s purpose, nothing is more important to understanding perspective then knowing it's motivation. It couldn't matter less to me if I’m correct, I care only about what is correct. Establishing what is correct is unquestionably superior to taking a position and supporting that position with why it’s correct. The structure of this reasoning provides the ability to continually ask the question ‘if’, rather than restricting reasoning to its simplest form of ‘why’. Both are essential in developing understanding, but the ‘if’ should always follow the ‘why’, not the other way around. “If this is correct, than why …” The pursuit of ‘if’ is self-correcting, as it continually calls into question the why, while assuming the ‘why’ only provides temporary assurance in conclusion. The why will continue to change as understanding is gained, and the temporary solace it provides in the harbor of misunderstanding is comforting only to those willing to accept they are correct. By not assuming anything, but continuing the process of rational thought, I believe a better understanding can be illustrated.
This will be the basis of this blog, to infer and evaluate the rationale of accepted theory and understanding within the framework of logic and without the bias of the necessity of being correct. We will pursue what is rationale, we will uncover what is not, we will discover the fallacies and break new ground until we are unable to find err in our logic. We will never stop and never surrender to our biases. We will evaluate on both a macro and micro level, and unhesitatingly change course when fallacy presents itself and we will do so in any and all fields we see fit. We won’t use theory to justify the logic, we’ll use logic to justify theory and we won’t hesitate to ask questions when fallacy presents itself in the reasoning. We will identify what is misunderstood and using the rules of logic show why in its simplest terms, it is a probable paradox of thought.
Until next time remember, the question comes after the answer. When the answer's correct, there is no exception, when there are no exceptions, the next question has no limits.
No comments:
Post a Comment