Quote:
Quote by: rez  LOL. I guess this would be an example of falling for the trap.
Can you or can you not problem solve? If you can problem solve, then please establish how you do so.
You can't figure out what makes a person a good detective and a bad detective? Please articulate your thoughts and answer the questions provided.
EDIT TO ADD: How are my questions dishonest?
Fact.
Fact.
Fact.
There has to be a decision made at some point. If we never made a decision, we would of never landed on the moon, or designed the internet. There were conflicting explanations on how to land on the moon, but one explanation rose to the top. How?
Considering we landed on the moon a while ago, we have new methods now. Better ways of getting there. Pretty cool huh? |
Yeah, flying to the moon on my Harry Potter broom was cool.. (just kidding!).
The building of a rocketship and related things, such as computers, are inventions and not explainations.
A good Detective would hunt for things or events that are detectable, and find what he was seeking. A poor detective could not even find something that is right under his nose.
About which choice they made about how to land on the moon, well, they put someone in charge of making a choice and did it the way the boss told them too.
You must put someone in charge, someone who will be responsible for both making the right choice, or taking the blame for the wrong choice.
The boss was partly lucky because the landing gear did not sink deep into top soil (cosmic dust) when they landed on the moon.
Is somene in charge of the universe, did someone create the universe like we create rocketships? Most scientists agree that the universe was not scientifically created by an intelligence.
Now what criterion (should) we prefer to use as the best one for explaning the universe? I assume you mean how did it happen to come about form it's orgin?
Perhaps none of them yet, it might be too early in our history to be able to comprehend this no matter what methods we use to try and figure it out, no explanation that would hold water without using the imagination as our bucket. The jury did not see the crime, they must imagine how it happened based on the evidence the dectective uncovered, as compared to their own personality trates and experiences. That is why lawyers are so carefull about jury selecton. So here you have two different kinds of a jury, the religious jury and the scientific jury. They will not deliver the same judgement. But wait, you might have a 3rd choice for a jury, one that is not bias ether way.
And so which explanation is the best is not as important as establishing a student group that is not bias. Which is hard to do when you are talking about older adults that do not have the flexabilty of not being bias from the get-go.
Even if the lawyers proved that reasonable doubt made O J Simpson not guilty, a majority of white people would still shout "guilty". So the real question is "can we somehow eliminate the human trait for being bias"?
Well, good luck with that one... more gene research perhaps? And yet, science has found no gene that makes people religious, or one that makes people think in a scientific manner, so I guess we are stuck with a bias population containing a diversity of opinion.
So my answer to your question is, you cannot currently have an answer to what method of explanation is best suited for everyone. Only which method is agreeable with your own bias.
If you wish I can elaborate on my explanation.