THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD. THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE. PT 2.

First Mate Martin continued with his testimony.

"I sent Crewmen Drury and Lyons forward, to inspect the Foremast and Sail, and the Bow section. I remained aft, to check the Masters Cabin.  All three of us would inspect the hold."

"Entering the Masters cabin, I found it to be in tidy shape. I could not find the Ships Log on the small writing desk, and the Sea Chest was stowed securely under the Bunk. There were no Navigational Instruments to be found, and this remained the case throughout the ship. No Sextant, Compass or Charts were found aboard."

The Boston Maritime Officials then inquired about the Ships Boats.

"That was a bit strange." The Mate replied. "The Tackle used to swing out the Starboard side Dinghy had been engaged, and it appeared to have been Launched.  However, it was done either in great haste, or by someone unfamiliar with the mechanism. The Gears appeared to have jammed several times, and it was swung out from the ship at an awkward angle.  If it was launched like that, there is a good chance that it capsized."

A question was then asked about the condition of the main deck.

"Well, the Ships Wheel,"  Martin had reported, "wasn't lashed down, which explains the lack of a set course.  Other than that, and the affair with the Dinghy, not much else was out of sorts.  Drury and Lyons reported that the Foremast and Sail were in good condition, and the Bow showed no evidence of a possible collision with another Vessel."

Finally, the condition of the Hold was brought up, as well as the nature and type of Cargo stowed below.

Martin, it was reported, went silent for several moments.

"You understand," he said finally, "that my shipmates and I are only reporting what we found.  As to the how and why, that is your duty."  

END PT 2.

FIRST PUBLISHED ON 11/12/2014.

LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 1.

It may be a Local Politician, Co-Worker, Friend, or even a Family Member. Yet, it is Inevitable that occasionally someone you know will Voice an Opinion about an Issue that will be in Direct Conflict with your own.  What should you do? What is at Stake if you Decide to Open up and be Honest?  Before you Decide, try to go through the Following Process, and see what Answer it leads you to. 

1.  Is the Subject Matter of Such Importance that it must be Addressed Immediately?-  What is Important to You, Friends and Family, may not really matter to others.  Pick your Battles.  If You have an Opinion on a Subject, but it lies in conflict with Others, is the Disagreement so Vast that you are willing to make a Stand Then and There?  Can it wait for a Different Time and Place?  What Do You Gain, or Lose, by Postponing such a Discussion?

2.  Many Times it is Better to say NOTHING AT ALL, LET THE SPEAKER MAKE THE CASE FOR YOUR SIDE OF AN ISSUE.-  Are you Familiar with the Saying:   

                 "BETTER TO BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN TO OPEN YOUR 

                  MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT."   

How Many Times have you been present at a Gathering or Event, where Someone Attending is making a Fool of Themselves, Blurting out Meaningless Drivel that has everyone Rolling Their Eyes and Walking Away.  If it is within a group of Fairly Well- Informed People, They will see the Individual for what He Is;  Ill-Informed, Ignorant, and Lacking the Basic Skills for Intellectual Discourse.  No Opinion They Offer will be Taken Seriously, and Hopefully it is on the Opposite Side of an Issue that you land on.

3.  The Most Important Disagreements to Confront Immediately are Deliberate Falsehoods and Bad Information-  Before you can point out an IRRATIONAL AND INVALID ARGUMENT, MAKE SURE THE SPEAKER CAN BACK UP ANY FACTS AND FIGURES THEY ARE STATING AS FACT.  Don't point out the Flaws in the REASONING AND STRUCTURE OF THEIR ARGUMENT, AND IGNORE ANY MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PREMISES.  THEY CAN JUST REFORMULATE THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE IT VALID, BUT IT MAY STILL CONTAIN THE SAME FACTUAL FLAWS.

HERE IS A BASIC EXAMPLE;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A  VICIOUS DOG.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

This is an INVALID ARGUMENT.  SPOT MAY 

BE A VICIOUS DOG, BUT ANY BREED OF DOG 

CAN BECOME VICIOUS, IT IS NOT A BEHAVIOR 

EXCLUSIVE TO THE ROTTWEILER.

TO MAKE IT A VALID ARGUMENT, IT IS CHANGED

TO THIS;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A VICIOUS DOG.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID.

HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF TRUTH FOR THE CONCLUSION

THAT SPOT IS VICIOUS, LIES IN THE PREMISE THAT 

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS. THAT IS A FACTUAL

CLAIM THAT MUST BE BACKED UP WITH PROPER

DATA.

Whenever someone Draws a Conclusion about a Specific 

Subject, make sure the Supporting Information backs it up.

FIRST PUBLISHED ON 2/10/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. THE PRESIDENTS STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH; A CHALLENGE TO THE INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL OPPOSITION. PT 1.

Having Listened to President Obamas STOTUS, and read the Full Transcript, to me the MOST IMPORTANT WORDS COME NEAR THE END.

Don't get me wrong, the POLICIES and ISSUES he Discusses are Very Important, and I will look at these in the Near Future.  Unfortunately, if the Attitudes Toward Properly Addressing Divisive Topics doesn't change, it will be an uphill battle to Find and Pass Solutions that are in the Best Interests OF THE PEOPLE LIVING, WORKING AND RAISING FAMILIES IN THE U.S.

Line #1-  

"Understand – a better politics isn't one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine."

Translation-  "You're not Always Right, and Neither am I.  Lets find Common Ground and Work from there.  The "IT'S MY WAY OR NOTHING ATTITUDE, IS THE ROAD TO FAILURE."

Line #2-  

"A better politics is one where we appeal to each other's basic decency instead of our basest fears."

Translation-  "If we Live in the Gutter, nothing gets accomplished, and Failure, Distrust, and Enmity is the Result.  IF WE LOOK FOR THE GOOD, INSTEAD OF PROMOTING IRRATIONAL  HATE AND FEAR AS AN AGENDA, THE RESULT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD ALL BE PROUD OF."

Line #3-  "A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues, and values, and principles, and facts, rather than "gotcha" moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people's daily lives."

Translation-  "As Lawmakers, and Elected Representatives of the American People, OUR JOB IS TO PRIORITIZE REAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT PEOPLES LIVES, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.  THE ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL APPROACH IS THE BEST SOLUTION, NOT IMMATURE INSULTS AND GLIB ONE LINERS THAT DO NOTHING TO ADDRESS REAL PROBLEMS. CONCENTRATING ON NON- ISSUES IS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF 'POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING', AND A CONTINUATION OF THE TYPICAL 'POLITICS AS USUAL' BRAND OF GOVERNMENT THAT SO MANY AMERICANS DESPISE.'

(FIRST PUBLISHED ON 1/22/2015)

FEATURE ARTICLES. CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- FIGHTING THE WRONG BATTLES. PT 1.

(CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING- They are not THE SAME THING, BUT ARE OFTEN USED INTERCHANGEABLY. FOR OUR PURPOSE, BOTH WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS ARTICLE.)

IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT THE REAL REASON THAT THESE TOPICS CAUSE SO MUCH CONTROVERSY IS TWO FOLD:

 -  MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD,

THIS INCLUDES BOTH POLITICIANS AND VOTERS.

 The Scientific Method, and what makes it a Valuable Tool, is sometimes not presented in a way that sets it apart from those Opinions that are Derived from MINDSETS That Are Essentially Useless, when discussing Phenomena that Occurs in Nature.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

First and Foremost, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A SET OF BELIEFS,WITH A DOCTRINE THAT PASSES JUDGMENT ON A CATEGORY OR SUBJECT, LABELING THEM AS EITHER SCIENTIFIC OR UNSCIENTIFIC.

Like the RULES OF LOGIC AND MATHEMATICS, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A PROCESS, THAT LEADS TO ANSWERS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT EITHER DEFINITIVELY EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED, OR OFFERS HYPOTHESES THAT POINT OR DIRECT US TO THE MOST PROBABLE SOLUTIONS.

We do not use the Scientific Method to Evaluate Subjects, that by Definition, do not rely on LOGIC OR EVIDENCE BASED MATERIAL TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTHFUL, SUCH AS RELIGIOUS FAITH OR OTHER SUPERNATURAL SYSTEMS OF BELIEF.

-  DISCUSSING OR DEBATING THE PROBLEM OFTEN MISSES THE POINT.

When you DISCUSS OR DEBATE ANY SUBJECT, THERE ARE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET, OR THE RESULT WILL BE ESSENTIALLY USELESS.

SEE PART 2.

FIRST PUBLISHED ON 11/11/2015.