I think the biggest difference is in assumptions in today's world is whether one thinks "the science" is both trustworthy and the only logical thing to base decisions upon or whether a broader, multidisciplinary scientific, proto-scientific or non-scientific reasoning is appropriate.
It's hard to argue the details of a case if one party doesn't accept the assumptions of your entire way of coming to the truth.
This is really essential knowledge for everyone. When I taught college writing, I taught students that in order to make an effective argument, you need to understand the assumptions of your audience. We started with the classic differences between "left" and "right" politically and what the underlying assumptions are for each view. Of course we then looked at written arguments made by people on both sides and the assumptions we could identify in each argument. The students had not only never thought to do this, but were often unaware of their own underlying assumptions. Not addressing assumptions when you are arguing with someone is a sure way to batter your head against a brick wall. And often even when you have addressed all the assumptions you can initially think of, there are deeper ones you haven't even considered, such as "Does my audience believe there is such a thing as the truth"? or "Is the truth knowable"?
Which category of assumption would something like the following fall into?
“Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate.”
F (Friedrich) Loeffler 1898
Principles of Virology 4th edition, Flint, Skalka et al, 2015
as in my main concern is with fundamental assumptions which i would contend causes issues at the level of our inner psychology…
that having a phobia about uncertainty such that you tend to hard case seek absolutism sets you up to be vulnerable to psychological manipulation…
becomes part of the how/why sales marketing and public relations messaging masquerading as the science tends to buffoon so many…
this based on the bogus notion that science can provide the absolute, can square the circle…
this when the best science can provide is a modeled approximation providing the value/subjective of meaningful predictability…
that the pure rational real is our ability to test validated off of labeled as reality…
this with the understanding that we do not know nor need to know what is absolute reality to use our experience of reality as our reference for what is real…
so rational real vs the more subjective real of a social precedent of consensus which tends to be labeled as a fact…
all such that if we fail to include value and meaningfulness within our consider of what is science then sales marketing will be happy to do it for us…
Thank you for this. It's sorely needed during a time when so many of us are assumptively combative instead of being more curiously questioning.
I think the biggest difference is in assumptions in today's world is whether one thinks "the science" is both trustworthy and the only logical thing to base decisions upon or whether a broader, multidisciplinary scientific, proto-scientific or non-scientific reasoning is appropriate.
It's hard to argue the details of a case if one party doesn't accept the assumptions of your entire way of coming to the truth.
This is really essential knowledge for everyone. When I taught college writing, I taught students that in order to make an effective argument, you need to understand the assumptions of your audience. We started with the classic differences between "left" and "right" politically and what the underlying assumptions are for each view. Of course we then looked at written arguments made by people on both sides and the assumptions we could identify in each argument. The students had not only never thought to do this, but were often unaware of their own underlying assumptions. Not addressing assumptions when you are arguing with someone is a sure way to batter your head against a brick wall. And often even when you have addressed all the assumptions you can initially think of, there are deeper ones you haven't even considered, such as "Does my audience believe there is such a thing as the truth"? or "Is the truth knowable"?
My kind of questions! Sharing discourse is far better than arguing.
Which category of assumption would something like the following fall into?
“Thus, we cannot reject the assumption that the effect of the filtered lymph is not due to toxicity, but rather to the ability of the agent to replicate.”
F (Friedrich) Loeffler 1898
Principles of Virology 4th edition, Flint, Skalka et al, 2015
interesting and agree is importance…
as in my main concern is with fundamental assumptions which i would contend causes issues at the level of our inner psychology…
that having a phobia about uncertainty such that you tend to hard case seek absolutism sets you up to be vulnerable to psychological manipulation…
becomes part of the how/why sales marketing and public relations messaging masquerading as the science tends to buffoon so many…
this based on the bogus notion that science can provide the absolute, can square the circle…
this when the best science can provide is a modeled approximation providing the value/subjective of meaningful predictability…
that the pure rational real is our ability to test validated off of labeled as reality…
this with the understanding that we do not know nor need to know what is absolute reality to use our experience of reality as our reference for what is real…
so rational real vs the more subjective real of a social precedent of consensus which tends to be labeled as a fact…
all such that if we fail to include value and meaningfulness within our consider of what is science then sales marketing will be happy to do it for us…
that this is based on