That's what we like to see, Kev on the attack again.
I am rarely "on the attack" although I apologise if you think that I am. I simply like to question; call me a sceptic if you like.
enrich wrote:Other ways, well the one written by Bandler and Grinder in Patterns 1 for example.
Well, that was kind of why I was asking. Patterns 1 is quite academic from a linguistic perspective but not at all from a neuroscientific perspective. This article in New Scientist was the first time I had seen any evidence to support how hemispheric differences might affect hypnotism.
enrich wrote:No, it doesn't confirmation per se but it does confirm that others have come to the same findings and conclusions.
True. I think it's worth pointing out that New Scientist is not peer-reviewed. It's a good magazine about science, but it's not Nature.
enrich wrote:Signature... And I know you take this one personally on the grounds that your reality is built upon an accumulation of facts rather than posibilities and speculation...
Woah there. You "know" this? What are you, a mind reader? (Or are you psychic?
My reality is built the same way as any other's reality, through interaction with the environment and other people (including the written and recorded word). Perhaps I am more critical over whether I assimilate information presented to me as facts. Where others see facts I see evidence or opinion. I think my signature hints towards that.
enrich wrote:A collection of facts does not automatically constitute truth. Facts are based upon research and findings, but this does not mean that the end conclusion is correct. Omit certain facts, or place them in the incorrect order and it will most likely amount to an incorrect conclusion.
What facts are you claiming here? Research produces evidence; evidence can vary in its value, significance, reach, clarity and many other characteristics; assessment of evidence produces theories that can be tested (through attempted falsification) by further research. Theories tend to present means by which we can reliably predict the outcome of future actions, within the constraints presented by the theories, based upon the limitations of the evidence.
Maybe you could give an example of where certain facts have been omitted or placed in an incorrect order and the conclusions drawn were incorrect?
enrich wrote:Can I ask you Kev, have you never come to a conclusion based upon facts which you have gatherd only to later discover that your conclusion was incorrect? Or are you always in the right?
I think facts are only really relevant in axiomatic systems, such as maths or philosophical logic. In these subjects it is always possible to misunderstand the facts or apply the rules incorrectly or inconsistently, producing incorrect conclusions. Handing over the wrong amount of change when buying lunch would be a real world maths example.
In non-axiomatic systems, such as the acquisition of knowledge, facts don't exist, but lots of evidence and opinion does. Due to the volume available, some evidence and opinions will be sampled before others; conclusions will always be drawn from an incomplete set. Conclusions should always be considered to be temporal because more evidence could be discovered in the future that may contradict.
All conclusions, and therefore all beliefs, are likely to be incorrect. By being critical and sceptical we can apply reason and research to reduce the margin of error. I'd like the conclusions that I act upon to have as little error as possible.
Can I assume your reality is built on possibilities and speculation? Except when it comes to trusting air-flight, car brakes and the nutritional need for food, I suspect.