Evidence VS Emotional Based Knowledge

Just an observation – For those who require independent evidence (whenever possible) to support their knowledge base they don’t often get emotional when folks disagree with them. They are curious about what evidence they may not be aware of. They ask a lot of questions (even if that frustrates others). These folks tend to be very open to the possibilities. Always open to any and all new evidence. Of course junk evidence isn’t given much weight. Most scientist would easily fit into this category, so would “serious professionals.” Tainted evidence isn’t really evidence at all. Snake oil salesmen are doing very well these days especially in the internet age.

Faith, emotional and non-critical thinking based folks don’t like being challenged very much by the illogical nature of their beliefs. They tend to react emotionally when challenged. Often attacking the challenger of their beliefs. This is all too apparent in the anti-science movements (anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, anti-fossil fuels, etc.). It’s important to be a critical thinker and to be a proud skeptical thinker which really only means that evidence is valued by you.

There’s a perfect quote to describe the value of being open minded but there should be limits to what should be considered. This quote by the late and great Carl Sagan who had a great deal to say about evidence VS faith and the failing of all information being automatically valuable.

Great advice if one chooses to take it! :O)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/try-fool-yourself-alan-quilley-crsp?trk=mp-reader-card

Avoid the Trap! Believing A LOT Doesn’t Make It Anymore “True”

Buzz- Buzz – Buzz – The Art of Total Miscommunication

I’m on several mailing lists; blog notification processes and twitter feeds (blah, blah, blah) all in an attempt to keep up with what is going on in my profession and areas of general interest. If you’re doing something similar then you know just how noisy it can get at times. You’ll also know that it’s impossible to be on top of the latest news since the news is coming at us faster than we can take it in. In fact, it’s coming at us in many multiples of what ANY human can possibly absorb! As an example it’s been reported that there are 100 hours of video uploaded to Youtube EVERY MINUTE! Not sure how accurate that is, since it’s impossible for ME to check.
In some of that overwhelming volume of communication we stumble across what are known as “Buzz Words.” These words are typically “non-words.” Simply put, unless you have the author’s definition, you have NO idea what the word means or what the author is trying to say. It requires further explanation and research. Of course a few years ago the words YOUTUBE, BLOG, TWITTER needed to be explained to the majority of the population. Until they were repeatedly defined and experienced by the masses, not many people understood what they were. So if you choose to pick the buzziest word you can find and include the “new” non-word in your communication (for whatever illogical reason you can create) what do you think the possibility is that you will have clearly communicated with the masses?
How many of the people reading YOUR post/idea/article/email will know the meaning (and even your specific connotation) of the newest “word on the block?” If your answer is anything but “only a select few who have read the book you’ve read” then you’d be partially correct. Of course then the person reading it would need to AGREE with your interpretation of the meaning of the word. So let the debate begin! Even if you limit the “new words you use to show how on top of the curve” you are to ONLY New York Times Best Sellers non-words you are still only communicating to an extremely small fraction of the world population.
Clear communication is a challenge under the best of circumstances. Don’t make it difficult ON PURPOSE! Lose the buzz words! You can read more about my feelings on “fiberfal” on my blog, in my newsletter AND in my upcoming book “Fiberfal In the Next Century.”
OK…come on, you have to admit…that was at least a LITTLE BIT funny! :O)

Common Knowledge – Strategies to Improve! Better Than Counting on Common Sense!

There’s NO WAY to improve “Common Sense” (such a silly and uninformed concept) but there are REAL strategies one can implement to improve “Common Knowledge!”

 

Share a story! Do a hazard assessment with someone. Tell a story about when you’ve failed to see a hazard and you paid the price or ALMOST paid the price. Ask questions of others! “How do you do….(fill in the blanks).”

These things are activities we can all do to increase our common knowledge.

A few more words about Safety I and Safety II. BE CAREFUL!

Describing “Good” management and comparing it to “Bad” management using an overwhelming amount of evidence from the masters (Maslow, Skinner, McGregor, Deming, Daniels et al) is pretty straightforward. There is a very good reason the PDCA/PDSA process works… it’s because it’s based on the Scientific Method. It’s based on the classic use of hypothesis, experimentation and evidence which has moved human knowledge forward for Centuries.

This isn’t a movement from one to another…it’s a natural evolution for those who chose to listen to the masters. It’s somewhat apparent by what I’m seeing and the links I’ve read that the author has listened.

Rejecting what one THOUGHT they knew for what becomes evident by output evidence is good management. Those who decide to continue to believe in the Myths of Safety will pay the price of a delayed knowledge. They will continue to argue their points but the reality is if it worked…we would not be discussing this observational concept of Safety(Add a Number of Letter whatever floats your boat). There would be no need to.

http://www.predictivesolutions.com/safetycary/author/alan-quilley/

I wonder what most CEOs would think of their Safety Pros coming to them with “the secret to safety” and calling it Safety II. Probably a well-received as approaching a management team with “Management Secret II.” My advice is DON’T DO IT if you don’t want to look like a FOOL.

Make 2015 THE Year you ask a lot more questions about what YOU believe to be true! And just as importantly ask WHY?

Ben Goldacre: Battling Bad Science

My focus in 2015 – Add some Humour to the Humourless Academic Folks…

“My principle activity is to tease those who take themselves and the quality of their knowledge too seriously.” – Taleb

Do everyone a favour in 2015, TORMENT an impractical academic by being lighthearted about their impractical theories and approaches…it’s actually VERY entertaining. :O)

The Evolution of Deficit Thinking: Educational Thought and Practice – Be very careful about what you believe to be “true”…

edited by Richard R. Valencia

Size Matters! It CERTAINLY matters when presenting research as something that can be applied to a larger population.

https://explorable.com/statistical-significance-sample-size

As professionals it’s important to consider the conclusions presented by research. For GOODNESS SAKE consider the sample size of the study you are reading and the confidence limits of the sample size to what conclusions are being drawn by the study. Time and time again I hear of yet another “breakthrough in human knowledge” when the sample size of the study is totally inappropriate to the conclusions made by the researchers.

BE CAUTIOUS! Ask about sample size!

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Today the Subject is Paradox.

We need not tolerate the propagation of unsupported claims without questioning. We need to vigorously challenge those claims with critical thinking and questioning. We need NOT be afraid to challenge the myths that have be developed with little or NO evidence. Ask “Why do you believe that?” of others. You may just learn something and perhaps their reflection MAY just help them realize what they believe may NOT be true.

 

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” Carl Sagan

Similarly, we need not tolerate the intolerant.

“We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies