Hello Ingemar.
You explained very well and I understand your point, but we are on
slightly different wavelengths.
Wisdom and knowledge are different things.
I completely agree with you that doubts (and the consequential
questions) are not only justified but even mandatory when questionable
topics are involved.
They help in shaping your opinion, and contribute to your wisdom.
But when physical or mathematical facts are the main issue and opinion
is not relevant, you had better trust the person you are consulting.
Of course he or she may be occasionally wrong, but in that case he
will be corrected by another expert who is more (or equally)
knowledgeable. And of course the person who is wrong must accept and
stand corrected. That is the way it works in science.
Accepting things taught to you by the person you want to learn from
contributes to your knowledge.
I will try with a little example to explain.
A. When you want to form your opinion on a political question, e.g.
'Is Milosevic a war criminal', you had better read as many newspapers
as possible on the subject. The more views the better. Your judgement
will have to do the rest. (And even when you reach the healthy
conclusion that he is, other people will think differently)
B. But when you want to know which three colours must be added to
yield white, you take one good textbook on optics and read. No reason
to doubt the results and compare what other books have to say about
it. No judgement needed either. (And all people reading all different
textbooks covering the subject will learn the same fact)
Please don't think I am saying that all questions are either A. or B.
type. Many are both, unfortunately. But I am sure you will get my
point.
All the best, Frank.
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:07:59 +0200, Ingemar Uvhagen
<ingemar.uvhagen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Frank van Lindert wrote:
>
>> But in a few technical discussions William was merely stating correct
>> physics facts - and these should not be doubted in the way it happened
>> by people who are obviously less knowledgeable.
>
>Frank,
>I do have another look at this:
>I think that if a person don't know (have the right knowledge in a certain
>area)
>one have to ask questions and have some doubts. If not, one will believe just
>about everything another person says simply because on one's lack of knowledge.
>Also, by questioning, one can sort the "truth" out of the "fiction", so to say.
>What I mean is that by questioning another person, one can convince oneself
>that
>what the other person says might be right. By questioning and doubting, one
>force
>oneself to think whether a certain thing is right or wrong.
>Now, if I, for example, would not question another person's words, I would then
>be a fool (anyone could say anything to me and I would believe).
>
>I don't have much knowledge in photographic-physical-technical issues. I still
>have to have that "critical filter" (questions, doubts) turned on to what
>people
>says. But if like fifteen people says one thing, and only one says another,
>than
>my "critical filter" tells me that those fifteen *might* be right. My "critical
>filter" are even more likely to believe a thing that one hundred people against
>one single person says.
>
>Questioning another person is *not* a negative criticism.
>Doubting another person is *not* the same as one think the other is wrong.
>
>I hope I have explained so you all understand what I mean.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|