About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Fiction- Stories, Myths and Legends. REWARD FOR THE FALLEN. FULL STORY

PART 1.
green trees

The man found himself on a dirt road.  How he came to be there was a mystery, for he could not remember the circumstances of his arrival.  In fact, he had no recollection of anything in the past.  All around him was an alien landscape and heavy foliage lined the path that stretched into the distance.
"What is going on?", he said to himself, "Why am I here?"  The man decided that perhaps the answer lay at the end of the trail, so he began to walk.

After a short time, a shape emerged before him, seemingly out of nowhere.  The man was startled, but regained his composure quickly.  Looking the newcomer over, the man was puzzled.  The figure was dressed in a shabby manner, wearing a worn out buckskin shirt and pants, and carrying an antiquated flintlock rifle.

The man wanted to speak to this new arrival, but never had the chance.  With a cursory glance, the one blocking his way said in a plain gruff voice; "You are on the right path, continue."  On that note, the individual stepped back into the overgrowth and disappeared.

"Strange," said the man, "an obvious eccentric."  So he continued on his way.

A short time later the man found his path once again blocked by an individual that appeared suddenly and without warning.  This time the intruder was dressed in a blue tunic, with matching blue trousers that had a yellow stripe running down the side of each leg.

Again, the man was given a quick once over, and then was addressed in an accent he couldn't identify;  "Ah, not a Son of Erin, but you'll do.  You're on the right path, continue."  As before, the way was made clear by the departure of this most recent interloper.

The man was confused.  "What is going on," he thought, "why am I here, and who are they that seem to pass judgment on whether or not to allow me to continue my journey?"
End of PT 1.










REWARD FOR THE FALLEN.  PT 2.

Wwii, Memorial, Quote, Monument, War

The man shook his head in bewilderment and continued on his quest to find the end of the trail.
However, things began to get more confusing.  Now his journey was often interrupted by individuals who spoke in languages he could not identify.  Almost as strange was the array of clothing that outfitted some of those who blocked his path.  

Often they were quite colorful and very extravagant.  Yet, at other times they seemed quite simple, often consisting of a plain tunic or robe.  Attire on the head and feet also represented both ends of the spectrum. It could be a helmet or cap accompanied with boots, or bare-headed with sandals.

It was not just the clothes that became more varied.  Individuals came in all sizes with many different skin colors being represented.  From time to time the newcomer was a woman, who treated him with identical solemness.

The man was becoming extremely frustrated, but that only seemed to strengthen his resolve to complete the journey.  There were a couple of more things that lifted his spirits.  He knew, inexplicably, that each person was dressed in some type of uniform.  Additionally, that they all were evaluating him and the judgment was universally positive, whether or not he understood the words spoken.  It was the tone of voice that came through loud and clear.
End of PT 2.







REWARD FOR THE FALLEN.  PT 3.

green trees and plants during daytime
After what seemed to be an eternity, the man came upon a gate that crossed the path.  There was no way around, for the vegetation off the road seemed impenetrable.

As he gasped in frustration, he became aware of an approaching figure on the other side.  While this individual was dressed in now familiar clothes, his manner and look were different.  To the man, he appeared to be in his early twenties, but his wide open smile set him apart from recent contacts.

"Hello Tony," the new arrival said, leaning against the gate.  "I guess you're wondering what the heck is going on."

The man looked intently at his counterpart and whispered out loud, "George Mellen, you were killed in a firefight outside of...," then he suddenly stopped, memories flooding back.

"Yeah, said his host, "I was killed in that tiny village, the one command considered vital to securing the region.  Caught one in the throat.  Wrong place, wrong time", he chuckled.

The man looked into the face of this lost comrade, and suddenly noticed that they were not alone.  Figures appeared from the trees that lay beyond the gated fence.  They were represented by every manner of dress he had already encountered, and some still unfamiliar.  The man was scared, but pride refused to let it be known to others.

"Tony, your home." His benefactor said, opening the gate.  The man hesitated crossing the threshold, and asked, "Am I dead, is this Heaven?"

"You're dead, that much is sure," George replied, "in time you'll recall the circumstances.  Is this Heaven? Let's just say it is an outpost on the edge of forever.  Just a place for men and women like you and me to rest, exchange stories and prepare for what comes next."

As he passed through the gate, Tony became aware of the beauty of his new surroundings, and a feeling of peace and serenity settled over him.  Suddenly, he understood.  Turning to his companion he asked, "Is this just for us, no one else. Why?"

George gave him a slight smile, and as others gathered around them to offer welcome to the new arrival, answered; "I guess someone figured that those of us who gave all it was possible to give, and lost our lives with such brutality, deserved a special place where our sacrifice was acknowledged and appreciated.  I never expected such a place would exist, but our kind never asked for much in return.  Maybe that is why it's here, because we earned something we would never have asked for."





THE END.

Thursday, May 21, 2020

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

Trump, Mental, Dementia, Dimwitted


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.

NORTH AMERICAN KANT SOCIETY: Amendments to NAKS constitution.

Dear David McDonald,
I hope that this finds you well and safe at this difficult time. I write today to circulate to all members the second round of proposed amendments to the NAKS constitution: Proposed Amendments to NAKS constitution May 2020.pdf
Amendments are marked in track changes. They have been approved by the NAKS Board and are now subject to consideration by the membership.
Because we are unable to meet in person to discuss this matter, I will be convening a Zoom meeting, probably on June 3, for discussion. I will send an invitation, including specific information about the time of the meeting, soon.
For those unable to attend the meeting, or who prefer the option of more extended/written discussion, there is also the option of posting on a new blog page on our website, made for this purpose (by Noam Hoffer, our great tech consultant!): 
Subsequently to these discussions, the vote will be held via email. Please do not hesitate to contact me (by reply to this email) if you have questions.
With best regards,
Rachel Zuckert


The "North American Kant Society" is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization.
2809 Kenyon Circle, Boulder, CO 80305.
http://northamericankantsociety.onefireplace.org/

Saturday, May 16, 2020

IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH: SCIENCE vs PSEUDOSCIENCE.



Water Sprite, Aquarius, Seaweed


Sometimes you may be watching a Program Dealing with a Controversial Topic, and Hear Words or Phrases that sound PROFOUND OR INSIGHTFUL. 

Their Use Could Be an attempt to Make the Speaker sound Knowledgeable and Authoritative. If you pay attention to what is being said, you will often find an Individual Speaking about a Topic, Who has a Fundamental Lack of Understanding about the the SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR PROPER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. 
(SUCH AS POLITICIANS ATTEMPTING TO USE TERMINOLOGY THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND TO ADDRESS AND SOLVE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES LIKE THE CORONAVIRUS.)

I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH: JUST BECAUSE A PUBLIC FIGURE USES A TERM OR PHRASE, DOES NOT MEAN THEY UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT MATTER.

Perhaps the most numerous examples of such cases of faulty reasoning skills can be found by TUNING INTO ONE OF THE CABLE TELEVISION SHOWS THAT ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ONE OF THEIR MANY SUBJECTS OR TOPICS. ( i.e. UFOS, ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS, GHOSTS, CRYPTIDS etc.)

I'll be Describing a Few from Time to Time.  See if you can spot Them the Next Time Your Channel Surfing.

"SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN HOW THIS WAS DONE."-  Is an Often Used Phrase that seems to Indicate that the Discipline of Science is Stumped by some INCREDIBLE FIND OR DISCOVERY, SO THE PSEUDOSCIENCE BEING PUSHED ON THE SHOW PROVIDES THE REAL ANSWERS.

Intellectual Discipline does not allow Science to make Uninformed or Unwarranted Conclusions, or Offer Opinions and Speculations that Lack any Basis in Reality. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD does not Mean offering Any and All Possible Solutions, AND MAINTAINING THAT THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY VALID.

The Tools of Proper Scientific Study, Together with the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking; SYSTEMATICALLY GATHERS EVIDENCE THROUGH PROPER AND SET METHODS TO AVOID CONTAMINATION, OBSERVATIONAL ERROR, AND CONFORMATION BIAS. THIS ALLOWS FOR PROPER EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION, RESULTING IN CONCLUSIONS AND HYPOTHESES THAT CAN STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.

The Phrase; "WE MUST GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE TAKES US", IS ENTIRELY TRUE.  HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T MEAN IGNORING DATA AND HYPOTHESES THAT CAN BE REASONABLY INFERRED FROM OBSERVATION AND TESTING, IN FAVOR OF SPECULATIVE IDEAS THAT HAVE NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT CAN WITHSTAND EVEN THE MOST CURSORY EVALUATION.

This Leaves us the Most Telling Difference BETWEEN REAL SCIENCE VS PSEUDOSCIENCE;  REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY PROPERLY GATHERS, STUDIES AND INTERPRETS ALL AVAILABLE DATA TO FORM CONCLUSIONS THAT EXPLAIN WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND, OR HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT ALL REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES.

PSEUDOSCIENCE STARTS WITH A CONCLUSION, (THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD), AND TRIES TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  THIS IS USUALLY DONE:

-  BY MISHANDLING OR MISIDENTIFYING AVAILABLE DATA.

-  ASSERTING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

-  IGNORING RELATIVE DATA.

-  FAILING TO UNDERSTAND, OR LACKING KNOWLEDGE OF
NATURAL LAW.

-  INCORRECT REPORTING OF SPECIFIC EVENTS, EITHER BY 
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR INSUFFICIENT RESEARCH.

... AMONG OTHER THINGS.

Look for Specific Examples in Future Posts.