Okay, some have or do interpret what I say to be derogatory towards them, when in fact I am speaking about what's on my mind at the time. Not as a ridicule towards a general person but primarily the facts of way things are in this world. I am not 100% correct on everything, just a perception of how I see it from what I see and hear. Everyone is entitled his or her opinion, and I listen to the opinions of others as well. Not always do I agree with those opinions, and most the time I tell them I don't or do agree.
When people choose to put stuff on the Internet they place it out there for wide open public opinion; therefore must expect a wide variety of views if and when it is given. Not everyone agree, no matter how right you may be in what is stated originally. Even when facts are conclusive there will be someone there to challenge those facts. However, it is up to them to present their own facts to prove yours to be incorrect.
Most the time when facts are well presented and tell a story that leads to a conclusion with all facts presented, most people come to the same conclusion when they read it. However, when a story is presented from the middle and no starting place was given, people will invent their own beginnings, which may be 180 degrees out from what was intended.
Are we investigators; today facts are presented and expected to be antithetical and come to a scientific conclusion before it will truly become excepted. We present facts in the form of a hypothesis, with pro's and con's and draw to a conclusion based off the interpreted facts in the laid out case. As a part of this process we test the variables that may lead us to another conclusion and eliminate them one by one based off the likelihood of factual probability. This gives us a reasonable degree of accuracy. These findings area also open for interpretation for other's to present another conclusion based off everything else which was not critiqued in the hypothesis. In the end we take all the credible views based off founded principles and come to a logical conclusion. Is this a long drought out process? It can be if your making a legal case, however in application of everyday questions and logical interpretations no. This is a matter of simple reasoning; "could it be this or could it be that, you present your facts and someone else presents theirs" then most the time most all other possibilities are ruled out we can agree to a simple fact.
I would say in conclusion, don't be dismayed when other's comment on a statement you may have placed in the public sector, as can be expected you will receive a broad amount of input both pro and con, but at least you have feedback.
When people choose to put stuff on the Internet they place it out there for wide open public opinion; therefore must expect a wide variety of views if and when it is given. Not everyone agree, no matter how right you may be in what is stated originally. Even when facts are conclusive there will be someone there to challenge those facts. However, it is up to them to present their own facts to prove yours to be incorrect.
Most the time when facts are well presented and tell a story that leads to a conclusion with all facts presented, most people come to the same conclusion when they read it. However, when a story is presented from the middle and no starting place was given, people will invent their own beginnings, which may be 180 degrees out from what was intended.
Are we investigators; today facts are presented and expected to be antithetical and come to a scientific conclusion before it will truly become excepted. We present facts in the form of a hypothesis, with pro's and con's and draw to a conclusion based off the interpreted facts in the laid out case. As a part of this process we test the variables that may lead us to another conclusion and eliminate them one by one based off the likelihood of factual probability. This gives us a reasonable degree of accuracy. These findings area also open for interpretation for other's to present another conclusion based off everything else which was not critiqued in the hypothesis. In the end we take all the credible views based off founded principles and come to a logical conclusion. Is this a long drought out process? It can be if your making a legal case, however in application of everyday questions and logical interpretations no. This is a matter of simple reasoning; "could it be this or could it be that, you present your facts and someone else presents theirs" then most the time most all other possibilities are ruled out we can agree to a simple fact.
I would say in conclusion, don't be dismayed when other's comment on a statement you may have placed in the public sector, as can be expected you will receive a broad amount of input both pro and con, but at least you have feedback.
Comments
Post a Comment