Dogma PS
Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:29 pm
I have been gone for a while and Dogma got kind of long. Good discussion though. Very Interesting. Now to respond.
Dear Dogma: Thanks for the compliment (I think).
Dear g: Philosophy is not supposed to make it murkier but clearer. Well it must have an error rate as well.
I agree with what you say. Everything is just not black and white like I would like it, but I just have to get by the clarity issue and think things through.
I agree with the personality issue. To me the biggest part of the personalilty thing is ego or pride. I have a few interesting observations along that line I would like to share with you sometime. Maybe Boston.
Dear Guest: Yes those two statements are inconsistent. One was made in an earlier post and the second one was made later after I read that little thing from that book I listed. Just goes to show that a person should not read books on philosophy, or reasoning late at night. I have thought long and hard on my second posting and I just cannot agree with my own argument. I have gone back to my world life experiences and will just say that it is subjective, and to heck with the objective position.
Never ment to ignore experience. That is the best quality. I was just trying to position the argument to make the process objective, but my argument was WANTING, or something like that.
Dear Dogma: I thought your question of who sets the standards by which an objective (or subjective for that matter) analysis can be made would have raised more responses. But it did not.
That brought forward a little pet of mine. SWGFAST states a person to be trained to competency. Who decides who is competent. You, the agency you work for. The State, The FBI, SWGFAST, IAI (now they have a test for excellence but not for competency).
So how do you determine who is competent and who is not?
Anyway, I am off for another week and then back here to work.
Thank You Everyone For the Input. Lot to think about.
Dear Dogma: Thanks for the compliment (I think).
Dear g: Philosophy is not supposed to make it murkier but clearer. Well it must have an error rate as well.
I agree with what you say. Everything is just not black and white like I would like it, but I just have to get by the clarity issue and think things through.
I agree with the personality issue. To me the biggest part of the personalilty thing is ego or pride. I have a few interesting observations along that line I would like to share with you sometime. Maybe Boston.
Dear Guest: Yes those two statements are inconsistent. One was made in an earlier post and the second one was made later after I read that little thing from that book I listed. Just goes to show that a person should not read books on philosophy, or reasoning late at night. I have thought long and hard on my second posting and I just cannot agree with my own argument. I have gone back to my world life experiences and will just say that it is subjective, and to heck with the objective position.
Never ment to ignore experience. That is the best quality. I was just trying to position the argument to make the process objective, but my argument was WANTING, or something like that.
Dear Dogma: I thought your question of who sets the standards by which an objective (or subjective for that matter) analysis can be made would have raised more responses. But it did not.
That brought forward a little pet of mine. SWGFAST states a person to be trained to competency. Who decides who is competent. You, the agency you work for. The State, The FBI, SWGFAST, IAI (now they have a test for excellence but not for competency).
So how do you determine who is competent and who is not?
Anyway, I am off for another week and then back here to work.
Thank You Everyone For the Input. Lot to think about.