What, Why & How do we Know ?
A main thread of mine is that apparently scientifically justified rationale is often way off the mark when it comes to the truth of any human-scale issue. I blogged last year a debate involving Steve Jones and George Monbiot, on the non-scientific aspects of scientific claims. To have faith in rational scientific argument is of … Continue reading “Scientific Truth”
I’ve not yet finished reading Eco’s “The Name of the Rose” – great 14th century murder mystery with philosophers, inquisitors and church leaders thrown in – hard to spot where fact ends and fiction starts … anyway the point is I’ve also just received and started reading the 2nd edition (2002) of Nils Brunsson’s “The Organization … Continue reading “Managing Hypocrisy”
Been reading Pinker, Dennett, Rousseau and Rawls in the break. Forming a view of rationalisation as compression (after simple equals powerful idea). Pinker refers to the entire left side (?) of the brain as the “baloney generator” designed to produce convincing sounding “arguments” in difficult situations. Humans have an innate comfort with the “rational” and … Continue reading “Rationalisation as Compression”
Binary or Tertiary views ? – Let’s do the Hokey-Cokey.How many things do you divide something else into. Are you a2×2 Person – BCG Grids, Yes&No, Black&White, we need a decision, binary chopper.3×3 Person – three layer architectures, with three layers in each layer, onion-skins ad-infinitum.Is there such a thing as an NxM Person ? … Continue reading “Hokey Cokey or Binary Chop ?”