--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > For me, its the regular reassessment and reassignment of > probabilities as to the truthiness of a particular perception.
For the record, "truthiness" (as popularized by Stephen Colbert) doesn't mean the quality of truth; rather, it means something you're sure you know without reference to facts or logic. <snip> > Constant reassessing and reassigning probabilities as new > data emerges is towards "a" solution. But perhaps only for > anal analyzers such as myself. How do others deal with > balancing these two dynamics: confirmational bias and > pattern seeking? I read as wide a range of opinion as I can manage. Typically, each person who voices an opinion will have some set of facts and/or exercise in logic to back it up, so the more different opinions you read, the more facts and logical exercises you accumulate. Then you try to come up with an interpretation of those facts and logical exercises that's consistent with all of it (while ignoring the opinions per se, because they're based on only one portion of the facts and logic).
