Write down what you believe; try explaining what you think is true. Put it in writing then wait a week and come back and read it – be ready to change what you wrote and do not be afraid to change what you think as well.
Most writing is an attempt to capture thoughts bouncing around in your brain, which is why outlining helps organize and capture/isolate competing thoughts.
Once captured, these thoughts can be organized, adding supporting thoughts/ideas or reject parts that are not adding value.
Writing helps you look at your ideas, store them and return later to continue thinking through the confusion of competing ideas with a potential of finding some clarity to lock in an understanding of something important.
When done systematically you can find what some think of as truth and establish a starting point to add elements to, which can become quite a complicated view of reality.
An example of this is how children observe life, make decisions about what is real, then mature adding new decisions developed during new experiences and either changes what was believed or become even more convinced they know what is real. At some point most believe they know what is really true about something and what is not; it is then changing their understanding about what they believe becomes harder. Some believe there comes a point a mind cannot be changed even when information is presented completely contradicting the understanding previously established. We are talking about mindset.
The problem is the ability to think through things and come to a logical conclusion is not something that is being taught to many. Apparently, it does not happen naturally, common sense it seems is no longer common. For too many, logical thinking and/or critical thinking is a foreign construct. This is not a new issue; it was addressed most effectively by the poet Alexander Pope, in his "An Essay on Criticism", part II, written in 1711 - "A little learning is a dang'rous thing;" [https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69379/an-essay-on-criticism].
Examples of this can be seen in religion and politics. It is amazing sometimes what people consider to be facts and truth; and how they are used to defend a preferred position. I have seen the most corrupt people standing beside the most pious at voting polls trying to garner votes for the same referendum. The only explanation for such a wonder, neither knows what they believe and they are both blind guides.
We need a simple approach to building an understanding of what we know and then we can begin to understand what we believe. So let’s try to build a process and see what we can learn.
Write a statement - what is believed.
Understand the difference between fact and assumption.
Fact is something that can be proven to be true, by all, using scientific observation. End result, each observation returns the same result.
An assumption is something we accept as true, but we cannot prove it to be a fact. Most assumptions can be converted into facts. Such conversion requires time and resources (effort), which is why some rush to conclusions they later regret. In military planning, an assumption is an unknown fact, which if is not true, the plan will fail. If wrong you will lose the battle, war, or engagement.
Most assumptions can be proven to be a fact given enough time and resources to validate multiple observations.
Now make two lists:
1. What do I know about my statement?
Can I validate that information?
Is the information available and can I gain access to it.
If yes - verify and accept.
Ask yourself why is it being made? What is the risk associated making it?
2. What don’t I know about my statement?
Does information about what I don’t know exist?
If yes, can I get access to it?
If no, what impact does not knowing have on my understanding – is an assumption required?
Explain the impact of any assumptions.
Describe how the new information impacts your belief.
Repeat as necessary and always be open to reprocessing - what I refer to as Socratic failsafe. The wisest man in Athens was Socrates, because he knew he did not know everything.
Most writing is an attempt to capture thoughts bouncing around in your brain, which is why outlining helps organize and capture/isolate competing thoughts.
Once captured, these thoughts can be organized, adding supporting thoughts/ideas or reject parts that are not adding value.
Writing helps you look at your ideas, store them and return later to continue thinking through the confusion of competing ideas with a potential of finding some clarity to lock in an understanding of something important.
When done systematically you can find what some think of as truth and establish a starting point to add elements to, which can become quite a complicated view of reality.
An example of this is how children observe life, make decisions about what is real, then mature adding new decisions developed during new experiences and either changes what was believed or become even more convinced they know what is real. At some point most believe they know what is really true about something and what is not; it is then changing their understanding about what they believe becomes harder. Some believe there comes a point a mind cannot be changed even when information is presented completely contradicting the understanding previously established. We are talking about mindset.
The problem is the ability to think through things and come to a logical conclusion is not something that is being taught to many. Apparently, it does not happen naturally, common sense it seems is no longer common. For too many, logical thinking and/or critical thinking is a foreign construct. This is not a new issue; it was addressed most effectively by the poet Alexander Pope, in his "An Essay on Criticism", part II, written in 1711 - "A little learning is a dang'rous thing;" [https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69379/an-essay-on-criticism].
Examples of this can be seen in religion and politics. It is amazing sometimes what people consider to be facts and truth; and how they are used to defend a preferred position. I have seen the most corrupt people standing beside the most pious at voting polls trying to garner votes for the same referendum. The only explanation for such a wonder, neither knows what they believe and they are both blind guides.
We need a simple approach to building an understanding of what we know and then we can begin to understand what we believe. So let’s try to build a process and see what we can learn.
Write a statement - what is believed.
Understand the difference between fact and assumption.
Fact is something that can be proven to be true, by all, using scientific observation. End result, each observation returns the same result.
An assumption is something we accept as true, but we cannot prove it to be a fact. Most assumptions can be converted into facts. Such conversion requires time and resources (effort), which is why some rush to conclusions they later regret. In military planning, an assumption is an unknown fact, which if is not true, the plan will fail. If wrong you will lose the battle, war, or engagement.
Most assumptions can be proven to be a fact given enough time and resources to validate multiple observations.
Now make two lists:
1. What do I know about my statement?
Can I validate that information?
Is the information available and can I gain access to it.
If yes - verify and accept.
- An exercise for how this works, is take any quotation made in a current article and find the original statement. Then compare how it was used versus how the author of the quote meant it. See the above quote of Pope, which often misquoted; learning is not dangerous -- too little learning is.
Ask yourself why is it being made? What is the risk associated making it?
2. What don’t I know about my statement?
Does information about what I don’t know exist?
If yes, can I get access to it?
If no, what impact does not knowing have on my understanding – is an assumption required?
Explain the impact of any assumptions.
Describe how the new information impacts your belief.
Repeat as necessary and always be open to reprocessing - what I refer to as Socratic failsafe. The wisest man in Athens was Socrates, because he knew he did not know everything.
RSS Feed