FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? PART 1.

As the Controversy Continues over GLOBAL WARMING, THE POLITICS OF THE SUBJECT ARE PUSHING ASIDE WHAT REALLY COUNTS, LEAVING US WITH THE FOLLOWING;

ARE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, LOGIC, AND CRITICAL THINKING COMING UNDER ATTACK BY THOSE PUSHING A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT IS ENTIRELY SELF- SERVING, AND CARES NOTHING ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION?

This Article is not going to Address the GLOBAL WARMING Controversy Itself, but will look at THE PROCESSES BEING USED TO ARRIVE AT THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS BEING OFFERED TO BEST EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FIND THE TRUTH ABOUT ANY NATURAL PHENOMENA, AND WHAT WILL LEAD US TO REAL ANSWERS INSTEAD OF BOGUS ASSERTIONS.

First, a Few Guidelines.

-  If one side spends most of its Time and Energy Attempting to Poke Holes in the Oppositions Theories, Evidence, and Conclusions, and Little on its Own Arguments that Support Their Position, IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LITTLE TO OFFER.

-  Arguing Motivations is a Meaningless Waste of Time.  The SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A VALUE BASED WAY OF LOOKING AT THE NATURAL WORLD.  LIKE THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING,  THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ACTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE REASONS BEHIND THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS.

-  What is the Source of the Evidence, Testimony, and Opinions being offered? For Example, Are they Taken From Peer Reviewed Material that has been Heavily Examined and Scrutinized for any Procedural Mistakes?

FINALLY, WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WOULD EITHER SIDE CONSIDER IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE SUBJECT?

END PART 1.

Date-  3/25/2015.

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? PT 2.

When you Discuss any Type of Theory to explain an Action, Event or Phenomena, be it a single example or a series, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD demands the Following;

-  DEFINE THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO ESTABLISH.

-  WHAT METHODS DO YOU PLAN ON USING TO ESTABLISH RESULTS THAT CAN BE PROPERLY STUDIED, EVALUATED OR REPLICATED IN A LABORATORY SETTING.

-  HOW WAS ANY DATA OR INFORMATION TO BE USED OBTAINED?  WHAT ARE THE SOURCES, AND WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE GATHERING OF SUCH MATERIAL?  WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES OF CONTAMINATION THAT WOULD ALTER THE QUALITY OF USEFUL EVIDENCE?

-  IS CERTAIN EVIDENCE, THAT BY ITS NATURE IS OF LOW QUALITY, GIVEN TO MUCH INFLUENCE IN ESTABLISHING THE TRUTH OR VALIDITY OF ANY CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE. (This could include things like ANECDOTAL OR PICTORIAL TESTIMONY.  EVIDENCE LIKE THIS IS OFTEN VERY SUBJECTIVE IN NATURE, AND MAY RELY ON THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE OBSERVER OR WITNESS, WHICH COULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE OR STUDY IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY.)

-  ARE THERE ANY ASSUMPTIONS OR ASSERTIONS BEING MADE ABOUT DATA BEING USED, THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AS TRUE?  DO ANY CONCLUSIONS BEING MADE RELY ON MATERIAL THAT ITSELF IS OF DUBIOUS AND UNSUBSTANTIATED  QUALITY?

-  ARE THE CONCLUSIONS MADE AT THE END THE BEST AND MOST PROBABLE WAY OF EXPLAINING THE EVIDENCE?  ARE THERE OTHER, MORE REASONABLE WAYS TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND?

In Part 3, we will look at how these GUIDELINES WERE USED IN THE PAST.

Date-  4/13/2015.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE INDIFFERENT. PT 1.

One of the Most Fascinating Parts in Researching ETHICS AND MORALITY, in Terms of the Nature and Source of CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG, IS HOW SOME SYSTEMS THAT ARE DESCRIBED AS ANTAGONISTIC TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER, HAVE MORE IN COMMON THAN THEIR ADHERENTS ARE WILLING TO ADMIT.

What is even more Unusual, is that They often have common Foes or Opponents in the PUBLIC AND POLITICAL SPECTRUM, AND ARE BEING PLAYED ONE AGAINST THE OTHER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO COULD CARE LESS ABOUT EITHER.

To Better Understand This, we must DEFINE EACH SYSTEM, AND SEPARATE THE DIFFERENT SUB- CATEGORIES THAT EACH CONTAINS.

FAITH BASED MORALITY-  IS, IN GENERAL, ETHICS BASED ON A METAPHYSICAL OR SPIRITUAL SET OF GUIDELINES.  THESE ARE USUALLY PASSED DOWN FROM ONE GENERATION TO ANOTHER, AND CAN BE PART OF A WRITTEN OR ORAL TRADITION. HOWEVER, INTERPRETATIONS CAN DIFFER OVER TIME, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE FAITH ITSELF.

INTELLECTUAL REFLECTION-  IS THE IDEA THAT ALL ANSWERS REGARDING ETHICAL QUESTIONS CAN BE FOUND BY THE USE OF CRITICAL THINKING AND LOGIC, AND HOW IT IS APPLIED TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR, BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP.  INTENT, MOTIVATIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES ARE KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THIS SYSTEM OF MORALITY.

SITUATIONAL ETHICS-  RIGHT AND WRONG ARE MEANINGLESS CONCEPTS, AND WHATEVER DECISIONS OR ACTIONS TAKEN ARE PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, AS LONG AS IT IS MADE BY FREE CHOICE.

ETHICS AND MORALITY. TRUMP AND DAVIS- THE ONE-TWO PUNCH OF INTOLERANCE.

( A BLAST FROM THE PAST. Date 9/3/2015)

As of 5:00pm, Todays Big Political News is;

-  DONALD TRUMP PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,  AND WILL NOT RUN AS A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE.

-  KIM DAVIS, THE COUNTY CLERK IN KENTUCKY WHO REFUSED TO ISSUE MARRIAGE LICENCES TO SAME- SEX COUPLES, IS FACING JAIL TIME FOR REFUSING TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FEDERAL LAW, WHICH RECOGNIZE THE LEGALITY OF THESES UNIONS.

Nothing in Common You Think?  Hardly.  They are SIMPLE BAROMETERS MEASURING HOW MUCH ULTRA- RIGHT WING SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BELIEVES THEY CAN EXPECT COME ELECTION TIME.

To Put it More Simply, HOW MUCH RACISM, SEXISM, AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE WILL DRIVE THE MONEY INTO CAMPAIGN COFFERS, AND SPUR VOTER TURNOUT.

TRUMP spread his SPIEL IN AN OVERCROWDED REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL FIELD, BY INSULTING AN ENTIRE ETHNIC GROUP,VETERANS, WOMEN etc.,  did you really think his Support Would Remain Constant as the Field Shrank from those who dropped out?

KIM DAVIS does not have to PERFORM, ATTEND, OR EVEN LIKE THEIDEA OF SAME- SEX MARRIAGE. However, SHE AND HER ILK WANT TO DENY THIS OPTION TO EVERY OTHER AMERICAN. 

IT IS SO REFRESHING TO HAVE ONE PERSON OR GROUP BE THE LAST WORD ON THE STANDARDS OF MORALITY EVERYONE ELSE SHOULD LIVE UP TO,  SINCE THEY SPEAK FOR GOD.

To Them RELIGIOUS FREEDOM MUST PASS THEIR OWN STANDARDS, NOT THE CONSTITUTION, COURT SYSTEM OR EVEN THE CONCEPT OF HYPOCRISY. 

You Know, the IDEA THAT EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE USED TO DENY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS DOING.

So be Careful America, AND LOOK UNDERNEATH THE RHETORIC.