Skip to main content

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

we should start asking this kind of searching question of politicians in hustings and town hall meetings.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

A guiding principle for my life.

Oftentime it sucks ass (thanks, Ego), but it is what needs to be done.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Being a local politician this triggers me.
I am getting used to people enjoying to bash politicians generally, but that a scientist who seems so proud on working based on evidence, fact and detail, judges people based on just the news is irritating.
If he doesn’t see that happening it might be because he doesn’t take a look?
I know loads of examples, but hey, who would want to hear about that when it is so easy to agree that all politicians are stupid and evil?
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

A person being able to admit its own mistakes earns more respect than a person only claiming its own opinion as the only truth.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Science is a process that seeks truth through observation. Religion and politics do not seek truth and observations are irrelevant. They are opposites.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I actually do recall one time when a politician changed their view. When Pres Ford took office our economy was experiencing a thing they called stagflation. That was a stagnant economy that was experiencing inflation usually attributed to a hot economy.

Ford championed a conservative approach, but after months nothing improved. He actually gave a speech admitting his policy wasn't working, and we were changing direction.

I'm a liberal, but I always admired Ford for that.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

— It happens among Friends; in fact, it is a hallmark of Quaker process on difficult topics. I would presume that Sagan never sat through a Friends Meeting for Business at a time when a difficult matter was on the agenda.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

More to Carl's point of the belief inertia of politicians, and I extend that to managers, this old saying was on a wall plaque where I once worked.

We the unwilling, led by the unqualified, have been doing the difficult for so long with so little,

we now attempt the impossible with nothing.

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

yesterday I quoted

Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago. [Bernard Berenson]

for about the same reason (I think)

in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Similar to what happens to most people when they observe a usability test. But not so much if they just read the report about the findings after the test is finished.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Dr Sagan inspired my values, my career, my hobbies and my life. Thanks for sharing a quote from this great human being.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I wish I could say that this has been my experience. Planck’s principle is closer to what I see.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Every day? Really?
Also, he must not have talked much to folks in religion or politics because it happens there. Not as much as it should....
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

because thats the key ingedient to possess intelligence.; to evolve, adapt ones view as more knowledge becomes available. Truth cannot live in what's born of opinion with no room for fact. Dishonest people are married to their opinions
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

religion is the furthest thing from God. Intelligence would include God needs no middleman or interpreter.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

I like how this is presented as something that goes back to character or attitude and made to sound like it's an actual effort. In reality, it's more about being addicted to finding out, and fitting new information into the picture that is meaningful enough that it demands from one to abandon other pieces that are not proven to be right or proven to be wrong is the reward.
It's a kind of conditioning like being able to pause and admire beauty in nature.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

sorry to say I know plenty of scientists to whom changing their minds is an anathema. They seem to flourish in the politically driven funding bodies. So new ideas or work that challenges the status quo is suppressed. It has always been so see Copernicus and Galileo, for historical examples. The post war period was odd as progress was fast and new ideas welcomed.
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

The best way to make sure you're right is to be willing to admit when you're wrong.

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.