Saturday, August 08, 2009

The Proper View, Grasshopper

To what degree should Information be vetted? Joe Kernan has his standard, Barry Ritholtz has his own. I have always tended to the belief that ‘Let the Buyer Beware’. There is the factor, nevertheless, that I desire to teach my Readership some of the principles of analytical thinking. I decided to present my own views on vetting Information. It becomes a tad unusual, and should itself be taken with a grain of Salt.

1) There is far too much Information to read, so at best only Scan Concepts which have been previously established as relatively sound. Good Students spend far too much time reading only rehashed arguments, and the search for knowledge entailed an expansion of individual containment of Concepts with some reliable methodology entertaining intellectual priorities.

2) Intellectual expansion insists on Speculation, which means Arguments never before advanced to the individual’s knowledge. These should be carefully reviewed, especially in reading the Commentary, with the understanding that adverse commentary has already been erased by the original author. Search from other sites of the information will be sparse if the argument is new, but easy to find if the information is dated or already found to be erroneous. New material should always be searched on the Internet.

3) Evaluate all new information based upon your own intellectual bent. Ask yourself if the information sounds right to yourself; One can almost always find a previous intellectual bias within yourself, if the argument sounds wrong. Find out what that intellectual bias is, and compare the reason of each; it will either prove the superiority of the new information, or reinforce the old information in comparison.

4) Accept that nothing is ever totally right. There is always some area of fallacy in any argument, which may or may not invalidate the entire argument. No one ever gets anything right perfectly; still, one has to maintain some level of tolerance or forbearance. It is often hard to judge how much leeway to grant to an argument, then seek expert advise online.

5) Realize that almost all knowledge is nefarious, and will be someday supplanted by a more relevant argument. Do not get the idea that it is malicious; it is only self-serving, developed by individuals who themselves want success. Recognize, that in the final analysis, all intellectuals are like Socrates, and must sup of the hemlock. lgl

No comments: