Quote:
Originally Posted by regular.joe
It's kind of like saying green grass ( also called a sand trap on a golf course) can be a problem.
|
I don't understand how that paradigm is relevant.
An example: a light bulb. Someone switches on that light. The bulb blows. He knows powering on a light causes light bulbs to fail because he saw it happen. A classic example of a conclusion based only in emotion. He had no reason to make that conclusion. Only his feelings proved it was true.
What causes a bulb to fail? Without knowledge that basic, then he has only converted wild speculation into ‘fact’.
Now, a light bulb fails when its filament vaporizes. This long and slow process is determined by voltage (temperature) and hours of operation. Numbers. Once its filament is so thin, then anything (including power on) snaps the filament. He did not think logically - first learn facts. Instead, he entertained his feelings. Power cycling does not thin out a filament. He used wild speculation to immediately conclude something. As Chicken Little also did to know the sky was falling.
Many of us do that because we never learn a difference between emotional conclusions (ie racism which is only judging someone on a first impression) and logical conclusions (ie obtaining perspective using numbers). So many know the Chicken Little story and yet never learn the underlying lesson.
So, if a sand trap and grass are same, show me the numbers and other facts that say so. Many may see green sand from a distance. Then assume it is grass. Then say it is definitely grass. And then all others ‘know’ it is grass. Because someone said it was without also saying why. Did he say why he knew - with numbers? If not, he was only being emotional - declaring a ‘fact’ only from observation and wild speculation.
The 'political agenda' (or popular urban myth) said switching on light bulbs causes failure. So many blindly believe that only because an emotional conclusion said so. Without the always required reasons why. 'Junk science' defines conclusions based in emotion. That violate well proven principles necessary for logical thought.
Decisions proven only by a feeling are how a political agenda becomes more important than a reality. That was the case in "The Confessions" from PBS. And is also a case (on CBS's 48 Hours) in another murder conviction of a 15 year old who spent most of his twenties and thirties in life imprison because a cop was emotional - not logical. Because the cop had a classic political agenda.
It was not that the cop "did not give a shit". The problem was he cared so much emotionally as to ignore logical thought. To entertain his emotions. To let a political agenda subvert logic based in hard facts and numbers. In the 48 Hour case, that cop routinely suppressed or ignored facts to achieve that political agenda - because he was only emotional.
He cared so much as to subvert logical thought. He cared so much that his reasonings were based only in emotion. That means he was criminal. No adult has the right to let emotions dominate their thinking. Only children are permitted to do that. Conclusions based in emotions may even be a felony.
Its not a felony to say power on destroys light bulbs. But only emotion can make that conclusion.