From [Marc Abrams (2005.10.18.0847)]
Rick’s response to my post last night went right to the heart of what I have been trying to say for a very long time on CSGnet.
The specific content is not important for these purposes. Rick responded in part with a mathematical model showing why he felt his inference was a good one. The model was flawless, but it presented one huge problem. The premise was, at least according to my way of thinking, false, so any conclusions drawn from from that model would not be valid in my world.
I presented Rick with my arguments and the data I used to support my premise and inference. I’m waiting to hear from Rick to see if his inferences and data are superior to mine. If so, I will revise my thinking. If not I hope Rick might revise his.
This is called learning and it could never have happened if there was no dialogue between us. It doesn’t really matter who is ‘right’ or who is ‘wrong’ here. We both benefit from the open exchange.
If I’m right, at least for another day I can walk around thinking I have the right ideas about capitalism. This of course could change in a flash with the emergence of new data and new inferences. But again, this is exactly what I want because my goal is not to be right but not to be ignorant.
I turn out to be a ‘winner’ whether I am ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
On the other hand, if my goal was to be in unilateral control of others I would want to not only ‘right’, but I would not want this known or discussable by others, and of course the undiscussability is also undiscussable.
Does any of this make sense to anyone out there?
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Regards,
Marc