Some YMWCK historical theorizing

[sanjuro_ronin]

The problem with most critical thinkers is that they either forget or don't acknowledge context or even the subjectivity of what THEY may see as "truth" or "fact".

[t_niehoff]

The problem with most critical thinkers is that they either forget or don't acknowledge context or even the subjectivity of what THEY may see as "truth" or "fact".

Truth -- reality -- isn't relative or subjective. If it was, the world/universe wouldn't, and couldn't, make sense, i.e., there would be no consistency.

The people who argue subjectivity/context are those that recognize that their views don't hold up to critical scrutiny but nevertheless want to find some justification for their beliefs -- which, by definition, are irrational beliefs (since they are not based on evidence and reason).

People find all kinds of ways of justifying their irrational beliefs. Much "mental exercise" goes into that.

[reneritchie]

Then why can't I unify relativistic Terence with Quantum Terence?

[t_niehoff]

RR,

A good book I recommend is "Counterknowledge" by Damian Thomson.

Thomson’s definition of counterknowledge is “misinformation packaged as fact”. There seems to be much counterknowledge in WCK.

For a review of the book: http://newhumanist.org.uk/1696

[sanjuro_ronin]

Truth -- reality -- isn't relative or subjective. If it was, the world/universe wouldn't, and couldn't, make sense, i.e., there would be no consistency.

The people who argue subjectivity/context are those that recognize that their views don't hold up to critical scrutiny but nevertheless want to find some justification for their beliefs -- which, by definition, are irrational beliefs (since they are not based on evidence and reason).

People find all kinds of ways of justifying their irrational beliefs. Much "mental exercise" goes into that.

Did you even ready my post?
What people see as "truth" and what is "truth" are not always the same, heck not to long ago the truth was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and so on.
The truth for some is that we never landed on the moon and Lee harvey killed Kennedy and no one else was involved.

Truth...

[t_niehoff]

Did you even ready my post?
What people see as "truth" and what is "truth" are not always the same, heck not to long ago the truth was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and so on.
The truth for some is that we never landed on the moon and Lee harvey killed Kennedy and no one else was involved.

Truth...

Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? There is truth and there is belief. You are mixing the two up.

Truth is truth, in that it reflects reality, the way things really are. Beliefs are something different. People can believe things that are true and they can believe things that are not. To say that both categories are "true", just individual "truths", is nonsense and redefines the term; that equates reality with nonreality. When people believed that the world was flat or that qi flowed through our bodies, they were wrong. That was (and is) not reality, it is not how the universe works, and it is not truth. They may believe it but that's not how things really are.

We know how things really are via evidence and sound reasoning, i.e., the foundational elements of critical thinking.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? There is truth and there is belief. You are mixing the two up.

Truth is truth, in that it reflects reality, the way things really are. Beliefs are something different. People can believe things that are true and they can believe things that are not. To say that both categories are "true", just individual "truths", is nonsense and redefines the term; that equates reality with nonreality. When people believed that the world was flat or that qi flowed through our bodies, they were wrong. That was (and is) not reality, it is not how the universe works, and it is not truth. They may believe it but that's not how things really are.

We know how things really are via evidence and sound reasoning, i.e., the foundational elements of critical thinking.

People tend to mix up belief and truth, it does indeed become subjective.
One man's truth about the odds of getting shot in South Africa are not another man's truth about being shot in Norway.

The is the issue with critical thinking, IF it can be done from an non-bias point of view, its great, problem is getting a non-bias point of view.

The reality of MY MA training is not the same as the reality fo yours or anyone eles on this board.

I am a big fan of critical thinking, when applied to specfics and not to generalizations.

[LoneTiger108]

Thomson’s definition of counterknowledge is “misinformation packaged as fact”. There seems to be much counterknowledge in WCK.

Perhaps you should elaborate here t? If the counterknowledge you suggest is present in WCK you're suggesting misinformation. Much of it.

Fact is, only facts about WCK can be traced to Leung Jan according to most practitioners. Before then it's all just gravy. I was taught more to rely on what I see and who I meet. My Sifu existed and so did my Sigung and Ip Man. That's a fact. How they trained and taught is diffferent from other members of the same family. Fact. Publically, I was in the first western group to exhibit these methods. Fact. I'm now one of the only practitioners publically promoting Man Sifu in the World. Fact.

That's enough for me. No Misinformation. No irrellevent info imo. What about a factual look into your training past & present? Why do you contribute to any forums?

If you are after anything resembling truth or moving toward truth, then you need to "exercise" critical thinking skills.

I'd say considering we're talking about WCK here we all need to exercise physically and mentally. Healthy mind, healthy body if you know what I mean...