On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 10:25:35PM +0100, Uriel wrote: > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Robert C Corsaro <rcors...@optaros.com> > wrote: > > There are fundamentalists the are wrong, and fundamentalists that are > > correct. I _always_ choose the correct ones because choosing the incorrect > > ones would be stupid. > > The only thing that really matters is to 1) know your limitations 2) > recognize it when you find that you were wrong about something.
The problem with the first bit is that knowing one's limitations isn't as straight forward as one may feel. You may know the error of your ways from experience, but this is all too often extrapolated to new field. While intuition is a valuable asset based on experience (whatever the type) it will never enable one to know what, or how much, one doesn't know. Thus, one can only know one's limitations after the fact. I completely agree with the second part. I'd furthermore point out that such recognition is usually arrived at after some internal and often external debate. Humble, logical reasoning enables that while tactics involving calling one's opposition <redacted> <redacted>- <redacted> full of <redacted> <redacted> often serves little other than to entrench the two camps. Granted, sarcasm can be a great literary tool, but like with any sophisticated construct, it must be handled with skill if we are to achieve the desired result. In the case above, Uriel mistook a sarcastic remark for an honest opinion. I have no intention of rubbing his nose in it -- especially since the reply was pretty reasoned and interesting -- but perhaps this is a lesson to all to adopt a little more humility in our ability to know the limits of our literary abilities and temper our tones. > Changing your mind (*in the face of new evidence or understanding!*) > is not something to be ashamed of, it is something everyone should be > proud of. Hear, hear! Good night, Martin
