How do you challenge your....

methodologies?

(not your beliefs in general, but your belief in your favored methodology for arriving at beliefs)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have so many methodologies that there seems to be no need for additional challenges.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You talk to friends and take a small interest in their life. Their bound to have other methods then you, and then you can see where that's taken them

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you think of an example of how a talk with your friends ended up challenging the way you had gone about trying to find the truth?

 

Oh, we are very complete today, oh Greenberg, are we not?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It sounds like an eclectic approach to truth acertainment. Do you consider these various methodologies of similar value? Do they never seem to contradict each other - results that is in a specific case or issue? If so, how do you choose which one is more valid?

This would make you rather different than an empiricist, for example, where details amongst submodalities may exist, but the overriding methodology is singular. Or?

 

I have an unfailing paradigm. Its true until its not.

 

One could argue that a paradigm is a product of methodology? So how did you arrive at this paradigm? And given that you arrived via some truth ascertaining procedure(s)? How do you challenge that procedure? Could their be others that might be more effective? Might you be overemphasing that one or using it in areas that others might be more effective? Have you tried other methodologies to test them? Etc.

 

I don't really have a methodology :|, or I can't really seem to think of one. Hmm..

 

Hmm its true until its not? Probably from experience. Trial and error, that sort of thing.

By trying to prove it false [ya ya I know]. Is it true under x, y, z?

The other options would be : its false unless its not.

That paradigm is a potentially deleterious one, since it assumes an antagonism to all notions

its neither true nor false. Thats a position of doubt in all things and one that is slowest to result in any decision making.

My own paradigm results in my assumption that is I have a theory that I hold to be true, it is workable until my actions or circumstances prove it false.

 

Oh you have at least one, probably several. My own sense is that most people have several though they may advocate one as the best or right one.

How do you decide something is true?

And then my question here is how have you challenged your habits around this?

 

I found this rather complex SAM. So I will work with just this portion.

It's true until it's not sounds like you accepted a belief system and so far it is working.

Let's say, for example, this refers to religion.

But then in your professional life you have learned new truths. And probably some or many of these neither through simple acceptance and also not through trial and error. If I remember right you work with nutrition. They are so many opinions out there one must make choices. What is your methodology for that and have you challenged it?

 

Professional truths work exactly the same. You sit and read what other people have done, accept what they did is right and then look for ways to falsify it, if you can reproduce what they have done, most likely true [if no operator error or inherently false hypothesis] if not, most likely false.

 

It doesn't seem like a very good one; I look at the things which have already been proven right, and see if this follows the pattern. This is the main way I think of things being true or false, but if they're supposed to be innovative and never been thought of before, I'm not sure what I do, but I sure as hell do something..

 

Even 'proven right' is a complicated issue. How do you determine this? Whom do you trust and why?

And then there is, as you point out, those new things. There are also things that are hard to test or have not been tested?

Then there are all those things that experts disagree on.

 

So you do not accept as true any assertions related to your professional work unless you fail to falsify these assertions?

 

You can't prove anything right with certainty, as much as you can fail to prove it wrong.

 

I ask myself a question if I am doing anyone other than myself good with these methodologies, and if the answer is yes I am on the right path, if the answer is no than who am I kidding to ask myself...no really I change the methodology if the answer is no, I copy someone else.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can prove one thing right with certainty if you are not the only one you are proving it to.

 

My actual concern was that your approach sounded incredibly time consuming. I thought most professionals would just have to accept certain core semi-consensus ideas in fields like nutrition, depending on peer review, etc., to whittle away groundless conclusions.

But then in a field like nutrition, at least in the fallout that hits the public, it seems the experts have a wide range of opinions.

I actually would have thought that many people in the field would simply have tended to fall into certain camps - whose work has some back up in studies - rather than that they must double check everything.

 

Good luck with this one. I have tried to point out the distinction between proof for oneself and proof for others in a multitude of ways and I find that many people treat these as exactly the same. If you cannot prove it to others you should not believe it yourself seems to be the odd, irrational conclusion.