WordWolf

I give up, why must it? I was pointing out that a SPECIFIC example, to me, looked nothing like what it was being described as, and THAT type of thinking bothered me. Just as when someone says "here's a contradiction" then uses that as their excuse to downgrade the Bible's utility. THAT's what I objected to, and I still do. For the most part, I've been leaving you guys alone about the inerrancy thing.

My point was that I think some people have made the easy decision, and just give up when they run into something they don't understand, as soon as they can't make heads nor tails out of it. (I've usually called in someone else to try to help me figure out what was puzzling me.) We just saw an example of that. Someone posted a pair of verses. I think a careful reading would make it clear, even without any special knowledge of Greek names or figures of speech. Heck, a look at other Bible versions could help work it out. A few seconds typing at Bible Gateway and I have the verses in 2 other versions, which seem to see the verses as I do. NASB 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. 5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes. CEV 4 Don't make a fool of yourself by answering a fool. 5 But if you answer any fools, show how foolish they are, so they won't feel smart. It's possible- and was just done- to take the 2 verses, not bother using REASONABLE measures to try to understand them- and just turn around, announce they are contradictory, and use that as justification for downgrading the Bible as a guide for guidance, wisdom, etc. It's possible, and lots of people do things like that every day. However, it's not intellectually honest, and it lacks integrity.

I can pretty much tell I've got a successful post, whenever Johniam feels the need to misdirect people from it and pretend he can't read what's written. The first thing that makes it so obvious is that he refuses to post with the markers so you can read what he's quoting from. This allows him to remove things from their context, which makes it easier to lie about what they were saying. Here's the marker for the post he quoted: (You can read it for yourself.) Here's what it said in part: " An organization spends YEARS on each person in their leadership training program. By your own admission, MOST of those who COMPLETED the training and were considered success stories and sent on assignment were "ARSEHOLES." (Most people would say "grossly-incompetent leaders" or something similar.) If MOST of the "successes" of a program meant to produce TRAINED LEADERS instead all became TRAINED ARSEHOLES, what does that say about the program? Most people would call such a program a colossal FAILURE. Most organizations with a "success" rate like that would be horrified, and would halt and completely examine every inch of their program to see where the failures were. twi instead just kept moving things along. If someone had the money together, they were able to enter a program that has been proven to produce leaders who are grossly incompetent, By your own admission. What CREDIBLE organization would consider such an irresponsible course of action?" Here was Johniam's reply: "Would they? Enron had a "success rate" didn't they? Oops. Your selective cynicism can be very funny." So, I clearly pointed out that twi's way corps program has been described by a different twi SUPPORTER as having been a multi-year program for training leaders that, as he said it, produced "ARSEHOLES." How can an organization run a leadership training program that runs for 4 years and ends that time mostly with "ARSEHOLES"? Only if it's a poor excuse for an organization, one that is inept and doesn't actually CARE about the people that are supposed to be led, let alone the people taught to lead. This becomes a bit more obvious when it's seen that the only real part run by professionals is on SALES. (vpw arranged for someone to teach Dale Carnegie's sales techniques without paying Carnegie, which, of course is a violation of copyright and illegal, but typical of vpw.) To bring in Johniam's comment into the thing he was replying to... What LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM has ENRON been running? What was the "success rate" of ENRON's LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM? As John puts it, Enron obviously had or has some sort of LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAM with a questionable "success rate" that can be compared to twi's "success rate" for their program-which mostly produces "arseholes" (to hear a twi SUPPORTER say it.) Looks like the only truly relevant part of John's reply was "Oops". His selective reading is sad, but remarkably PREDICTABLE. However, the blatant corruption of twi, the lies to their own people of twi, the criminal actions by those at the top of twi- NONE OF WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY STRESSING- those DO mean that ENRON and TWI are both worthy of being considered equally corrupt and wickedly deceitful. twi's Board has all the morals of a wickedly deceitful Board running a group like ENRON. So, bringing Enron into the discussion actually IS relevant, despite them having nothing to do with posts discussing LEADERSHIP TRAINING PROGRAMS and how twi's fails miserably to benefit its people.

I'll address the glaring errors here in turn. However, I'd like to thank John for making an observation that I wouldn't have expected him to. When your supporters are likening your organization to ENRON, you KNOW your reputation for corruption and low morals is set. So, I agree with John that ENRON and TWI should be mentioned in the same category. Nice one.

If nobody minds, I'll link Julie Haggerty like this: Airplane! Lloyd Bridges Hot Shots

"We've got to catch those thieves red-handed." "What color are their hands now?"

I'm with Naten on this. I'd rather go with "I don't know" than be swift to say "the last word on this is that it's illogical and contradictory at its heart." (Although people can be so, I see God Almighty as ABOVE that and non-contradictory at the Ultimate Level and making perfect sense if we can see that deeply. In this case, I find the verses need no explanation. However, since I'm not holding a universally-held opinion, I'll explain it. This is an example of "antanaclasis", when the same phrase or word is used with 2 different meanings, with both being a grammatically-correct usage, and both meaning different things. We do this in English. "First things first." (Those things of primary importance will be addressed immediately.) "The more I think of it, the less I think of it." (As I give more consideration, my opinion and esteem of it drop further.) "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Attributed to Ben Franklin.) (We must cooperate, or we will all be killed individually.) So, the same deal is with these verses. "Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." "Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Don't answer the fool the same way he's ranting, because people won't be able to tell you apart if you're both sounding like raving idiots. "Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Answer the fool in accordance with the magnitude of his stupidity, so he can realize he's wrong and learn something. I didn't need any help to see this one- the first time I read this it seemed like the obvious meaning to me, and on further examination, I still find it is so. When considering whether I make sense and God Almighty does not make sense, or I am silly and God Almighty really makes sense, my money's on God making sense and me being too feeble-minded to see at his level. a child first learning how to play chess can't keep up with an adult chess master. The child may consider an individual move of the chess master to make no sense... right until the checkmate is performed.

"Clash of the Titans."

A) Moderating the political forum- which was completely unnecessary to the GSC's purpose and optional- was tiresome and emotionally-draining, to hear the mods say it. I avoided the thing almost completely because it LOOKED like that, and I have plenty of other venues if I want people to yell at each other and insult each other. So, we had a choice of no GSC, or a GSC with no political forum. Me, I don't miss the political forum, and I was missing the GSC before it was gone. Someone made up a separate forum specifically for political discussion. It's around somewhere. http://www.blueredusa.com/smf/index.php If you want to talk politics there, by all means, be my guest. B) There is a chat room. Scroll down your page. I just tried the chat room. It works fine. If you're having trouble seeing it, or entering the IRC channel, then either you need to update your web browser, or switch to a different web browser. (I'm using Firefox, and Opera should render it as well.) Now, whenever I wander through, I don't see anyone IN chat, but that's an entirely different question.

It's easy to tell it's still here. Supposedly, it was shutting down last Winter. There's Facebook pages and other ways to communicate between us, and "Ex-way vision" was set up for those who wanted to stay together. The short of it is that the political forum was too much work all by itself. Once that was gone, the GSC became manageable. From what us posters heard, and I believe it.

Here we have it. This sentence is basically the justification, the rationale, for lying about all other organizations to make them look so bad they're as poorly-run as twi. An organization spends YEARS on each person in their leadership training program. By your own admission, MOST of those who COMPLETED the training and were considered success stories and sent on assignment were "ARSEHOLES." (Most people would say "grossly-incompetent leaders" or something similar.) If MOST of the "successes" of a program meant to produce TRAINED LEADERS instead all became TRAINED ARSEHOLES, what does that say about the program? Most people would call such a program a colossal FAILURE. Most organizations with a "success" rate like that would be horrified, and would halt and completely examine every inch of their program to see where the failures were. twi instead just kept moving things along. If someone had the money together, they were able to enter a program that has been proven to produce leaders who are grossly incompetent, By your own admission. What CREDIBLE organization would consider such an irresponsible course of action? So, by your own admission, there's 2 twi's. A) the OFFICIAL twi, which gets all the money, misappropriates it at the top, has the top cadre consisting of corrupt people, and whose idea of years of leadership training produces horribly inept leaders who are a blight on any location they are sent (with a few exceptions that test that rule) B) the UNofficial twi, where a few local groups actually care about people, attempt to do things with completely opposite goals and results as the official twi, all while lending their credibility to the OFFICIAL organization and paying them for the privilege of providing nothing in return but the name of the organization. So, if twi vanished tomorrow, the people you credit with being great Christians would still do what you say is good for people. If you people vanished tomorrow, twi would have to retool itself through accounting trickery, and would continue to exist for the pleasure of the people at the top who are sucking the finances out of you, In other words, the OFFICIAL twi needs you, and you locals do NOT need them and are only hanging around for each other and out of a sense of "brand loyalty," I once owned a Commodore 64. Commodore went out of business long ago. I haven't stopped using computers since then. I use computers out now. I liked my Commodore 64. At the time, it was pretty spiffy. Now, I work without it, and am a LOT happier with the results. The new computers out-perform my old PC drastically. There are, however, a handful of people who actually still use old Commodore 64s they have refurbished and repaired. They're so spellbound by the wonderful "honeymoon" of when they first got a C-64 that they still think it's the best thing around, even now.

[A) When you were a teenager, you trusted them and didn't KNOW there was corruption and inappropriate actions being done. B)So, when the investigations were done, didn't all the people responsible GET IN TROUBLE? See, RESPECTABLE organizations aren't perfect, but when corruption is found, attempts are made to correct it, and the people responsible are ejected and handed over to the legal authorities. For example, you described FRAUD, which is a FELONY. Some people should logically have been sent to prison for committing it.] I know all about the ways in which tithe money can be used to churches. [From the context, it's obvious you're equating "the ways in which tithe money can be used to churches" with corruption and financing murderers. Most of the time, money collected by churches goes for operating expenses and other LEGITIMATE uses of funds- missionary work, soup kitchens, and so on. If someone finds out a church today is financing terrorists or whatever, that becomes MAJOR NEWS because it's an EXCEPTION. People don't just yawn and say "that's the third one this week" or whatever. Looks like you're considering conventional churches to be corrupt, vile villains so that twi can fit in without trying to hide all the corruption in twi, by making that just "business as usual" for churches.] [Ok, time for a recap and a quick history lesson. Through the magic of the internet, hours of research can be done in minutes while reading. "Today I am a member of a men's fraternity" Galen's referring to the Knights Templar. This is a modern organization with the same name and some shared goals as an organization of the same name that existed in Europe several centuries ago. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Knights_Templar "There is no clear historical connection between the Knights Templar, which were dismantled in the 14th century, and any of the modern organizations, of which the earliest emerged publicly in the 18th century, and are referred to as Neo-Templars by some authors. However, there is often public confusion and many overlook the 400-year gap. Also, no one can be commissioned as a Knights Templar since the organization was disbanded by the papacy in 1302." The existing Knights Templar who survived after 1302 either merged into the Knights Hospitlar, or went to Portugal and formed a new organization with a different name ("Knights of Christ.") This does not make Galen's men's fraternity any less noble or admirable, so long as they do noble or admirable work. However, they are NOT the same organization that was definitively disbanded in the 1300's. "who has been openly hunted by various governments at the bequest of the Roman Catholic Church." The original Knights Templar was unjustly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1300's, and it asked various governments to unjustly persecute them as well. That was centuries ago, and applied to the ORIGINAL, UNRELATED group. (The current RC Church freely admits the unjust persecution was unjust.) Galen has never had to consider, say, hiding in a basement because jackbooted stormtroopers were going door-to-door looking for Templars to haul them somewhere. "In fact as a US servicemember I served in a nation where my fraternity is 'illegal' and members who are discovered are subject to imprisonment." Galen, do you really think you would have been thrown in prison in a modern country because you belong to an organization that shares the same name as one that was disbanded in the 1300's and that the modern country actually CARES about that? Do you HONESTLY think that? If so, then I'm really concerned about your ability to reason. If not, then I'm really concerned about your honesty and integrity. "All thanks to the tithes of Catholics." Yeah, if this was the 1300's, I'd sure consider the Catholic money collections that went to hunt Templars to be spent unjustly. (It was financially profitable to seize the holdings of the Knights Templar, but it was dishonest, immoral and unjust.) To equate modern collection plates in a Catholic mass to the Templar persecution in the 1300's is just silly. But all this journeying into creative fiction isn't about history, is it? It's all justified to portray it as the truth- because anything that excuses twi for its corruption is justified, isn't it? [As 501-C charitable organizations, this is factually incorrect. Churches are NOT "businesses". Churches do NOT "operate on a bottom line", and they are not required to "show a profit" for any reason. And let's not lose "AS FAR AS I KNOW, EVERY CHURCH THAT TAKES TITHE IS LIKELY DOING EVIL WITH IT." Oh? You've been investigating local churches, and ALL of the ones you've investigated have been "doing evil" with the money they bring in? What were the last 5 you investigated, and what "evil" were they doing? Or, is all that actually just a supposition based on what you GUESS they're doing with money you haven't traced? And isn't the supposition and guesswork very convenient in that it allows you to pretend all of them are as corrupt at the top as twi? I disagree. This does not excuse twi of corruption (snip)

[Those co-existed during the same timeframes. The reason for that is that twi's methods of "vetting" candidates for anything has always been SLIPSHOD and ARBITRARY. As lcm himself documented, vpw's vetting for him for entry into the corps-the multiyear program of twi for training its titled leaders and other hierarchy- was simple... "YOU CAN STAY AS LONG AS YOUR MONEY HOLDS!" vpw wanted to know he'd be getting money. There was never a question of "who among the interested candidates would make appropriate leaders, and who has to be refused because they would be a poor candidate." If they could PAY, they could get in. Nothing in the Corps application process was a realistic "brake" for the program-other than "can you get us the money?" In some cases, some excellent Christians were dedicated to God and entered that program and other programs, or served as local leaders. In some other cases, some unstable individuals or greedy and venal people entered that programs and other programs, or served as local leaders. So, your experience "on the field" could vary widely based on whether or not twi was passing along an excellent Christian or dumping a loose cannon on you because he paid his money. I've known of some excellent and some awful leaders in twi, some of whom were local, and some of whom were corps graduates. The corps program was so deficient that-if you went in as an excellent Christian, you may have come out as one, or you could have been ruined as one based on the bizarre teachings and practices vpw inflicted on them. On the other hand, if you were lukewarm or worse, there was nothing in the program to stop you, and nothing in the program to repair you and make you a better Christian. What does all that mean? It means twi's methods of acquiring and training leaders are greatly deficient and below what is considered an acceptable standard outside of twi. That a few people worked out is NOT something I credit to twi- since twi did nothing to make them so. In some cases, however, they adulterated good Christians into bad ones, and in other cases, they took poor Christians and dumped them on locales. I can't just shrug my shoulders about practices that ROUTINELY resulted in these.] [The odds of him finding any OTHER local fellowship that would apply to are slim at best, Everyone ELSE wants people to know their role and never challenge things. Also, as valuable as the Bible is, is the be-all and end-all of things really all "word studies" and scholarly study?] [Too convenient, and too easy. These people are-morally and legally- ACCOUNTABLE to you for their actions. In assuming the titles as the cadre of the organization, they have fiduciary responsibilities to do those "jobs" that accompany the titles and actually "lead", and to do so in a manner that actually gets things done that should be done while preventing other things from being done that should NOT be done. What's truly "INAPPROPRIATE" is to find corruption rampant in an organization- especially in its top tier- and to turn a blind eye to it and continue to support that corruption and actually provide a mask for it by doing "business as usual."]

I disagree with Galen's conclusions and some of his reasonings. That doesn't mean I don't respect him. I find many of the things he's done to be quite admirable. Mind you, they co-exist with me disagreeing with him strongly on a few issues, so someone might thing there's contradictions in there. I find that any organization that's fine with some of its leaders giving such sociopathic advice to be one I can't trust, support, or co-exist with in any substantial manner. In any respectable organization, someone's caught doing that, and there's a lot of trouble for the person doing that. Most Christian churches do a lot more "vetting" of its leaders before they're allowed to be called "leaders". I have a friend who's gone through YEARS of training and vetting that would find the process twi used/uses to be remarkably SLIPSHOD, INDISCRIMINATE and CLUMSY- in short, UNPROFESSIONAL and INSUFFICIENT.

I'll explain how Galen is an exception to things. vpw, among other things, was a petty, venal man who wanted accolades and adoration. He wanted the cachet of titles he didn't work up to. So, his vision of twi included lots of people applauding him, standing when he entered rooms, and so on. He admired the IMAGE of the military while lacking any familiarity with it. (We've all seen movies, but there's a reality beyond that.) So. vpw wished he could have people do what he THOUGHT the military was about- people who give orders, and people who follow orders without question. He mentioned that lots of times, and that IDEA was an inspiration when he formed the "Way Corps." Among other things, vpw seemed to have been a little spellbound by the mystique of the military whose service he avoided when he had the chance. (Again, he wanted the benefits without working for the rank.) So, whenever the subject of military personnel came up, vpw himself treated them as "hands-off" and was a LOT nicer to them all over the place. That trickled down at every level. So, if you were in the military in twi, you were spared the inner corruption and basic bs they often passed down. Galen is a further exception because of his TYPE of service. As a military officer, he of course went where assigned, and went to different places. In his case, he ended up a LOT of places, so it would have been a lot of work for twi to pin him down and pressure him. Whenever anyone started to apply the screws, well look at that, I'm being relocated. So, he had a milder twi experience than most, which makes it easier to apply the excuses and rationalizations about how it's really not so bad, and how everybody else is rotten, too, and so on...

Someone once pointed out that the "kindler and gentler" stuff is bleached clear of all the things that might make it actually INTERESTING. rfr wants everything micro-managed and doing EXACTLY what it's told. The people are not so much fellow humans as cattle to be herded or shrubs to be shaped.

Julia Roberts Hook Dustin Hoffman

The thing is, vpw WANTED parrots. twi WANTS parrots. The cadre wants people to repeat what they're told, and hand over their money. Even years after leaving twi, people were endorsing stupid things because someone higher-up said they were so, and when asked, they just repeated what the other person said- which didn't answer the question the FIRST time. I was strongly considering carrying packets of crackers, and handing them to people whenever they just parroted whatever leadership said without understanding it. If you know me, you KNOW I was preparing to do it, and to send some in the mail.

That's it. With Anthony Hopkins, Winona Rider, Gary Oldman, Keanu Reaves, etc etc. Hopkins, as Van Helsing, has all the best lines. It's worth watching just for Van Helsing. Ok, your turn.

Fairly recent as opposed to black and white, certainly, but it's not hardly new. WAM. I wouldn't expect the posters here to necessarily have seen it or been familiar with it. Unlike the movie I selected. I really thought the last set of quotes would be remembered.

"I'm no lunatic man. I'm a sane man fighting for his soul." "Our ways are not your ways. And to you there shall be many strange things." "Civilization, and syphilization, have advanced together." "Yet, we may still save her precious soul. But, not on an empty stomach! Jack!" "Yes, sir?" "Ah! I starve! Feed me!" "There is much to be learned from beasts." "Was she in great pain?" "Yes, she was in great pain. Then we cut off her head, and drove a stake through her heart, and burned it, and then she found peace." "Absinthe is the aphrodisiac of the self. The green fairy who lives in the absinthe wants your soul. But you are safe with me." "Mr. Morris, your bullets will not harm him. He must be beheaded. I suggest you use your big Bowie knife." "Well, I wasn't plannin' on getting that close, Doc." "Jack. Come here. I know how deeply you loved her. That is why you must trust me and believe." "Believe? How can I believe?" "I want you to bring me, before nightfall, a set of postmortem knives." "An autopsy? On Lucy?" "No, no, no. Not exactly. I just want to cut off her head and take out her heart."

I was thinking of that too, but I decided against posting quotes from that. So, that's not this movie.

[Any true innovator has taken things in directions that defy "what they were taught." To say otherwise does a great disservice to them and belittles their accomplishments. Any person who learned through independent study went "beyond what they were taught" because there was no teacher. Anyone who learned "hands-on" through experience with nobody over their shoulder went "beyond what they were taught" because there was no teacher. On the other hand, one can go around REDEFINING what it means to be a teacher or to have a teacher. However, isn't redefining a term or concept just so it agrees with vpw an awfully long step to make just to justify another factual mistake? He said something that was technically incorrect. It was also self-serving, as in "I'm 'The Teacher' and you'll only go as far as I teach you." Accept it was an error and get past it. I recognized this decades ago and the most thought I've ever given it was explaining it now and dismay that some people would rather come up with creative reinterpretations of the common usage of words rather than accept vpw made mistakes and this was one of them.]

[You should remember to ask us. Ex-twi'ers who still drink the Kool-Aid tend to make the same few dozen mistakes, no matter who, down the decades. Several of those mistakes have been definitively disproven using simple Bible techniques that many ex-twi'ers should find familiar. This is one of them.] ============================ www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/page__st__120 Dr. Wierwille taught that the OT was only "for our learning" and that the NT was for "doctrine", distinguishing between the two. He used Romans 15:4 for his proof text. Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. However what VPW failed to tell us was that "learning" in Romans 15: 4 is the Greek - didaskalia. This same Greek word is translated "doctrine" 19 times elsewhere in the Bible. This is the only verse where it is translated "learning". www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/ Number 9 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels. In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels. ================================================= [so, what does that mean? It means that vpw was completely wrong on this. A) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime was for our learning. Therefore, the Gospels were for our learning. This fails because Genesis-Malachi were written aforetime. The Gospels were written after Pentecost and concurrently with the Epistles. So "written aforetime" doesn't apply to the Gospels, making them as relevant to Christians as the Church Epistles. vpw made a simple mistake that any Divinity School student should be able to avoid, let alone a supposed graduate. (Some people keep calling him some sort of "Dr" but he should be above elementary mistakes if he really was one.) B) He said that the Gospels didn't apply to us because one verse says that what was written aforetime was for our learning. Therefore, it's not for our doctrine, it's merely something we may learn from, and it wasn't addressed to us. This fails because vpw once again ignored an error in the KJV and based a doctrine on it. The phrase "for our learning" contains the word "learning", which is translated (poorly) from the Greek word "didaskalia." That's the same word consistently translated "doctrine" elsewhere in the Epistles. So, that sentence should read that what was written aforetime was "for our DOCTRINE." So, that verse didn't address the Gospels at all, and if it did, it would make the opposite point vpw claimed it made. The Bible is a united whole, so it's all profitable for the Christian, for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. ]

The word "research" was redefined by lcm. For those who aren't aware of it, lcm's academic credentials was his Bachelor's Degree in Psychology, and riding the bench on the football team. lcm declared (with no justification) that "research" meant the same as "re-search" or "search again", and that instead of academic "research", we were supposed to reread twi materials and whatever vpw said. I'd have to check my syllabus from the "Renewed Mind" class, however. I'm having the impression that it came up in that as well, and that Walter endorsed this foolishness long before lcm hit his "fog." ======================= https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Research "Research can be defined as the search for knowledge, or as any systematic investigation, to establish novel facts, solve new or existing problems, prove new ideas, or develop new theories, usually using a scientific method." www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research "Definition of RESEARCH 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject " www.experiment-resources.com/definition-of-research.html "In the broadest sense of the word, the definition of research includes any gathering of data, information and facts for the advancement of knowledge." "Reading a factual book of any sort is a kind of research. Surfing the internet or watching the news is also a type of research. Science does not use this word in the same way, preferring to restrict it to certain narrowly defined areas. The word ‘review’ is more often used to describe the learning process which is one of the underlying tenets of the rigid structures defining scientific research. THE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question. Finding a definitive answer is the central goal of any experimental process. Research must be systematic and follow a series of steps and a rigid standard protocol. These rules are broadly similar but may vary slightly between the different fields of science. Scientific research must be organized and undergo planning, including performing literature reviews of past research and evaluating what questions need to be answered. Any type of ‘real’ research, whether scientific, economic or historical, requires some kind of interpretation and an opinion from the researcher. This opinion is the underlying principle, or question, that establishes the nature and type of experiment. The scientific definition of research generally states that a variable must be manipulated, although case studies and purely observational science do not always comply with this norm. "