That said a lot. One of the things it said was that vpw was slow in learning what were the most recent copies extant. The average layman, as of 1942, could have learned better than that. (With the internet, we know a lot more than that.) He had the centuries wrong, and the languages wrong. "Aramaic primacy" has gone the way of the do-do because older resources have surfaced- in Greek, and older by more than a century. By pinning his hopes on the obscure "Aramaic first" movement, vpw added another layer of "only we have the secret answers"- but only did so at the expense of passing along ERROR to twi. Since this was before the internet, he neither cared nor thought they'd get caught teaching ERROR.
Anyone foolish enough to lock their thinking into thinking vpw was correct in both century and language, exposes their deficiencies rather plainly. EVERYBODY knows better by now- at least, those who care and bother to spend more than a few seconds looking things up.
Another thing it said was that "WE" can get to "thus saith the LORD" -and outlined the process how WE could get there. It was pretty straightforward. Anyone claiming vpw was the final word on things, that vpw was authoritative on things, who has the nerve to contradict him on the actual things- like how we can get to "thus saith the LORD"- well, hypocrisy is sometimes easy to find.
Its interesting wierwille was likely referring to the Textus Receptus if we go by the fifth century reference. Westcott-Hort used Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vaticanus that dates a century earlier as you noted. Yet - wierwille appearantly either didnt know this at the time pflap was published or was simply mistaken when pflap was published and forgot about westcott-hort or...yeah, who really knows. But wierwille was not a KJV only kinda guy, though he insisted his followers used a KJV with heavily edited center margins, like some kind of custom Scofield type study bible based on way theology that always seemed to be largely unintelligible cause the notes had to be written so small..I digress...Wierwille uses Westcott-Hort interchangeably throughout his publications and especially when it suited him...makes me wonder if he knew the difference until much later when he had people like Walter Cummins around who had a real education
This clearly shows either ignorance or sloppy writing with no cross checking by the author...mmmm...this your guiding light mike?
I’ve looked at critical Greek texts over the years and investigated that field to a small extent.
If you even spend a cursory amount of time reading about the field you come to quickly learn it is really a specialized field. It has a lot in common with archaeology. There are also the same names that keep showing up as experts in that area.
VPW was uneducated in that area as evidenced by numerous comments in different contexts.
Here is a basic Wikipedia link on the Greek New Testament NA28. If you read through it all and don’t censor the material it has several pointers to many different areas for investigative study.
I’ve looked at critical Greek texts over the years and investigated that field to a small extent. ... If you even spend a cursory amount of time reading about the field you come to quickly learn it is really a specialized field. It has a lot in common with archaeology. There are also the same names that keep showing up as experts in that area.
My first excursions into this area were merely reading the introductions and prefaces to several Greek Interlinear texts. I don't remember when, but at some point in my 1970s New Testament Canon research it dawned on me that the "Critical Greek texts" were NOT named that way to indicate them to be the ancient texts that are the most critically important, as in a mild case of desperately important.
It was shocking to me that the word "critical" referred to criticism and judgement. Then I discovered that hardly any other grads had become aware of this. Not only that, but as I did some informal grad polls in the early 2000s, it became apparent the most grads, leaders included, thought the critical Greek texts originated in the early centuries, like the 3rd or 4th. That the ink was still wet on the Stevens Text in 1550 was entirely unknown in the grad population.
As I got to slowly understand the mechanics of how these texts were produced it became apparent to me that the process was much like archeology.
But lastly, in more recent decades, what amazes me the most are the inherent spiritual challenges that are in this field.
What the critical Greek texts essentially are, in a spiritual sense, is a bit alarming.
They are scholarly 5-senses detective projects aimed at unscrambling what the devil scrambled in the early church, starting a little before the apostles died. Scholars matching wits with the devil seemed like an unfair match to me. I got the impression of a wide open door the devil has to influence God's people, entrapping them in denominations, to prevent them from learning the power in the manifestations.
They are scholarly 5-senses detective projects aimed at unscrambling what the devil scrambled in the early church, starting a little before the apostles died. Scholars matching wits with the devil seemed like an unfair match to me. I got the impression of a wide open door the devil has to influence God's people, entrapping them in denominations, to prevent them from learning the power in the manifestations
You previously stated you were unfamiliar with confirmation bias. This is a prime example of how it works.
You previously stated you were unfamiliar with confirmation bias. This is a prime example of how it works.
How so?
It was the just terminology that I was unfamiliar with. That a bias could hinder critical thinking is totally obvious, even if it were to lack a name.
What I am searching for is a good name for the opposite of critical thinking.
You see, critical thinking is a bias itself. it is a bias against error and fraud and sloppiness.
It is a suspicion the error may lurk within an idea, so the idea under suspicion must be poked and prodded in every which way to see how it stands up to critical scrutiny. That suspicion is a good bias to have UNTIL the goal of truth is reached when all the critical thinking strategies are exhausted.
Once an element of truth has passed all the critical thinking tests, it can be regarded as relatively free of error and fraud and sloppiness. The proper way to then approach this element of truth is to embrace it with a positive bias and incorporate it deep into mind and life's activities.
I thought that this second, positive bias was called "confirmation bias" but I was mistaken.
So now I am searching for the technical term that describes this appropriate positive bias that truths deserve, AFTER they pass all the critical thinking tests.
But alas and alack, this notion of finally finishing the critical thinking tests is rarely considered in academia. What are we to call this process of driving a element of truth deep into mind after it has passed the critical thinking tests?
IF there is no term, I guess we will have to make one up.
Like I said in an earlier post today, the 5- senses working of the texts is a scholarly effort to match wits with the devil. We were taught in the AC that working the 5-senses angle the best we can is important, and textual analysis has its place. However, the tipping of scales over the devil's skillful scrambling comes NOT via 5-senses research techniques, but by revelation from the Author.
The only way we can get an upper hand on knowing the Word and will of God is by God Himself intervening and giving us this most necessary help. Scholars eschew final absolute knowledge this way. They may acknowledge that the Biblical writers had access to the Author, but not us. That kind of guidance died with the Apostles is the best attitude they can muster, as far as I have seen.
Like I said in an earlier post today, the 5- senses working of the texts is a scholarly effort to match wits with the devil. We were taught in the AC that working the 5-senses angle the best we can is important, and textual analysis has its place. However, the tipping of scales over the devil's skillful scrambling comes NOT via 5-senses research techniques, but by revelation from the Author.
The only way we can get an upper hand on knowing the Word and will of God is by God Himself intervening and giving us this most necessary help. Scholars eschew final absolute knowledge this way. They may acknowledge that the Biblical writers had access to the Author, but not us. That kind of guidance died with the Apostles is the best attitude they can muster, as far as I have seen.
Wrong all the way across the board. Wierwille and pflap have an obvious glaring error and u refuse to see it and retort with an imagined reality that u likely call spiritual...as in spiritual perspective or whatever ..this is why I call out confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance when I see it...and it's something I'm working through in my own life so no fingers pointed anywhere.
My first excursions into this area were merely reading the introductions and prefaces to several Greek Interlinear texts. I don't remember when, but at some point in my 1970s New Testament Canon research it dawned on me that the "Critical Greek texts" were NOT named that way to indicate them to be the ancient texts that are the most critically important, as in a mild case of desperately important.
It was shocking to me that the word "critical" referred to criticism and judgement. Then I discovered that hardly any other grads had become aware of this. Not only that, but as I did some informal grad polls in the early 2000s, it became apparent the most grads, leaders included, thought the critical Greek texts originated in the early centuries, like the 3rd or 4th. That the ink was still wet on the Stevens Text in 1550 was entirely unknown in the grad population.
As I got to slowly understand the mechanics of how these texts were produced it became apparent to me that the process was much like archeology.
But lastly, in more recent decades, what amazes me the most are the inherent spiritual challenges that are in this field.
What the critical Greek texts essentially are, in a spiritual sense, is a bit alarming.
They are scholarly 5-senses detective projects aimed at unscrambling what the devil scrambled in the early church, starting a little before the apostles died. Scholars matching wits with the devil seemed like an unfair match to me. I got the impression of a wide open door the devil has to influence God's people, entrapping them in denominations, to prevent them from learning the power in the manifestations.
You really don't understand the meaning of criticaltext, textualcriticism or critical thinking. The word critical/criticism really throws you for a loop. Victor was confused about this, also. I could explain it all to you, but it's clear you are unwilling to learn, to find out. I won't waste my time.
It was the just terminology that I was unfamiliar with. That a bias could hinder critical thinking is totally obvious, even if it were to lack a name.
What I am searching for is a good name for the opposite of critical thinking.
You see, critical thinking is a bias itself. it is a bias against error and fraud and sloppiness.
It is a suspicion the error may lurk within an idea, so the idea under suspicion must be poked and prodded in every which way to see how it stands up to critical scrutiny. That suspicion is a good bias to have UNTIL the goal of truth is reached when all the critical thinking strategies are exhausted.
Once an element of truth has passed all the critical thinking tests, it can be regarded as relatively free of error and fraud and sloppiness. The proper way to then approach this element of truth is to embrace it with a positive bias and incorporate it deep into mind and life's activities.
I thought that this second, positive bias was called "confirmation bias" but I was mistaken.
So now I am searching for the technical term that describes this appropriate positive bias that truths deserve, AFTER they pass all the critical thinking tests.
But alas and alack, this notion of finally finishing the critical thinking tests is rarely considered in academia. What are we to call this process of driving a element of truth deep into mind after it has passed the critical thinking tests?
IF there is no term, I guess we will have to make one up.
You still don't understand critical thinking or confirmation bias. You are willfully ignorant of what those terms mean.
I don't understand the nomenclature phobia that persists here. It is necessity, not grandiosity, that drives the evolution of language.
You don't understand how language changes, either. And you don't want to understand. Again, I could explain it and provide some links, but I won't waste my time, and you don't have the time -- all your projects keep you too busy to learn.
I'll give you a hint: language changes, it doesn't evolve. Find out for yourself what drives language to change.
You previously stated you were unfamiliar with confirmation bias. This is a prime example of how it works.
Yeah, I am only recently becoming aware of it's use in serious circles, and still learning about how GreaseSpot posters are using it.
Is there is a bias against the notion of "confirmation bias" in the sense that it cannot be used in a constructive and useful way?
I'm asking, because I am new to the term.
I think I first started hearing "confirmation bias" being used to analyze why crazy conspiracy theories proliferate. This was long ago, 80s & 90s Art Bell late night radio kind of talk.
It didn't seem to be a part of normal news media and conversation back then. I didn't hear "confirmation bias" used seriously until the recent decade when conspiracy theories entered the political realm.
*/*/*/*/*/*/**
But critical thinking skills I knew of since Jr. High. I was a Sherlock Holmes fan and read every adventure, twice. In my teen age stereo electronics experiments, I had to apply critical thinking skills properly, or suffer the consequences of getting jolted with 110 volts of house electricity. Getting shocked a couple times was all I needed to get real critical and suspicious of any exposed electronics in sight. In college Physics classes these same skills had to be fine tuned to get the right numerical answers (plus show all my work how those numbers were arrived at) on final exams.
But I think it is ironic and even funny, that people think the application of critical thinking skills (CTS ?) is required at all times and for all topics. This strikes me as cartoonish, or like an exaggerated SNL sketch… like the Church Lady.
There are proper times and places to lighten up on the intense application of these CTS.
Moses was the meekest man on Earth at one time.
But "meek" got demoted in modern language.
Moses, it looks to me, knew how to switch off (click) his CTS, and get meek to take it in with no resistance or suspicion of error. Oh, I am sure Moses had to turn his CTS back on (click) after learning and receiving time was over. Everyone knows that not having CTS on most of the time out in public, makes one an easy target, known in NYC as a sucka.
Both meekness and gullibility in modern language can describe the INAPPROPRIATE turning off (clunk) of CTS.
But what gallant, noble sounding nomenclature do we have for the appropriate switching off (click) of CTS, like Moses did when he was meekest or coach-able-est?
The word “coachable” was worked some in the 80s TWI-2 to describe good meekness, or Moses Meekness. Can we do better than that?
Doesn't some game manufacturer like Parker Brothers have a board game where players have to make up new words?Maybe there is one.We could play it HERE !!!
You will, however, waste your time
by explaining that
you wont waste your time.
You should consider the folks at home read-only-ing this.
They might be willing to learn.
The irony of this does not escape my sense of humor. I learned it by watching you.
*The read-only folks at home should not limit their reading to GSC, victor wierwille, Mike, or Nathan_Jr. They should read deeply, widely. They should find out for themselves.
The irony of this does not escape my sense of humor. I learned it by watching you.*The read-only folks at home should not limit their reading to GSC, victor wierwille, Mike, or Nathan_Jr. They should read deeply, widely. They should find out for themselves.
And let's not forget to pound out a hearty keyboard "hello" to all the historians hailing from the mid-2000s reading this, and behind them the cyber-archeologists piecing together their competing "Critical Grease Texts" and wondering what a food fight is.
And let's not forget to pound out a hearty keyboard "hello" to all the historians hailing from the mid-2000s reading this, and behind them the cyber-archeologists piecing together their competing "Critical Grease Texts" and wondering what a food fight is.
The word critical/criticism really throws you for a loop.
No. INITIALLY I was thrown for a loop by the term "critical" , but then I got myself edumacated and learnt it up to be the scholars criticizing or RATING the veracity of various ancient manuscripts, usually fragments. That made sense to me then. They were rating things like the way archeologists rate items on various parameters.
The term "critic" never bothered me again after that. But what did bother me was how few other grads knew it, once I knew it.
Earlier on this thread I had written: What I experienced in PFAL and my early twig years was liberating and showed me how the Bible fits for my life. I saw how unsupervised, uneducated, young people with holy spirit could form a local extension of the Body of Christ. I got a relationship with the Father and with the Son out of the deal. All of that is intact, and thriving to this day.
I finally did see savage wolves start to move into TWI-1 slowly a few years later, and in 15 years they had ruined the ministry that had set me free. I am still free because I latched onto the Bible and the part of the ministry that was good, and avoided the parts that were not best.
OldSkool wrote: …Except you can't see that the savage wolves cobbed together the savage doctrines they savagely teach and the end result is people are led away from Christ.
I think that the savage doctrines were entirely in the TVTsand perpetuated by a minority subset, that is,only SOME the Corps, a slim minority. This nasty toughness grew during the 1980s, and johniam has documented the decline in cheerfulness that happened simultaneously.
And I agree that these influences within the ministry did lead SOME away from Christ, but that too was a slim minority.As the 1980s chugged by less and less good was happening.
chockful,
Thanks for your background story earlier on Christmas Day. -
You wrote:
“Forge your own path and be free.”
-I am doing that, in a couple of independent ways. I get to minister to the valley of human need in odd ways. One way is in my dance adventures, going strong for ten years now. I’ve become an entertainer of sorts, networking with older retired musicians inland where I live, and with the younger Deadhead community down at the hippie beach.
-I am doing that, in a couple of independent ways. I get to minister to the valley of human need in odd ways. One way is in my dance adventures, going strong for ten years now. I’ve become an entertainer of sorts, networking with older retired musicians inland where I live, and with the younger Deadhead community down at the hippie beach.
Cool! Keep on keeping on. My main hobbies these days are musical. Lead guitarist and Im learning to sing...which strangely sounds like a tortured cat at times but Im getting there...lol
Nathan_Jr wrote:
Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.
Ok so what is the opposite of critical thinking? Coachable, meek learning?
Catholics have a Confirmation ceremony for those who had “arrived.”
Once a seeker finds the truth on some one thing,
the seeker is incorporate that truth element
into his life and perspective, and teach it to others.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*//*
I had written: NOW, we can move on to the other discussion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death. I mean hours after last breath.
As in Luke 23:43? The criminal would be unconscious in paradise with the master?
No, that verse doesn’t teach it. That verse just got its comma moved to reflect it..
Cool! Keep on keeping on. My main hobbies these days are musical. Lead guitarist and Im learning to sing...which strangely sounds like a tortured cat at times but Im getting there...lol
One of the crazy things I learned with the Dead cover bands is dance to the Garcia diddling they do so well. Somehow I learned I could dance to the lead guitarists by "playing the air guitar" with my feet. So far I only fell once!
My first excursions into this area were merely reading the introductions and prefaces to several Greek Interlinear texts. I don't remember when, but at some point in my 1970s New Testament Canon research it dawned on me that the "Critical Greek texts" were NOT named that way to indicate them to be the ancient texts that are the most critically important, as in a mild case of desperately important.
It was shocking to me that the word "critical" referred to criticism and judgement. Then I discovered that hardly any other grads had become aware of this. Not only that, but as I did some informal grad polls in the early 2000s, it became apparent the most grads, leaders included, thought the critical Greek texts originated in the early centuries, like the 3rd or 4th. That the ink was still wet on the Stevens Text in 1550 was entirely unknown in the grad population.
As I got to slowly understand the mechanics of how these texts were produced it became apparent to me that the process was much like archeology.
But lastly, in more recent decades, what amazes me the most are the inherent spiritual challenges that are in this field.
What the critical Greek texts essentially are, in a spiritual sense, is a bit alarming.
They are scholarly 5-senses detective projects aimed at unscrambling what the devil scrambled in the early church, starting a little before the apostles died. Scholars matching wits with the devil seemed like an unfair match to me. I got the impression of a wide open door the devil has to influence God's people, entrapping them in denominations, to prevent them from learning the power in the manifestations.
What makes you think these scholarly types are 5 senses as opposed to Christian?
The only difference I see is they have real Dr degrees as opposed to a correspondence doctorate in homiletics.
They compare through analysis texts which regularly show scribe error leading to doctrinal error.
You are hilarious jumping from one scenario where you come off like a researcher then now this where it is “scholars matching wits with the devil.” And how that’s “not fair” lol.
Is this ostrich cult research ?
Stuck on your 24 year old delusions refusing to look at ANYTHING more recent or modern including logic, facts, discoveries, science, or anything else outside some box you labeled “collaterals” but you won’t even honestly discuss with us or evaluate said “collaterals”
So called ministry and their so called collaterals.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
155
52
146
54
Popular Days
Dec 23
92
Dec 26
75
Dec 24
70
Jan 30
68
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 155 posts
chockfull 52 posts
OldSkool 146 posts
Nathan_Jr 54 posts
Popular Days
Dec 23 2022
92 posts
Dec 26 2022
75 posts
Dec 24 2022
70 posts
Jan 30 2023
68 posts
Popular Posts
outandabout
I copied the emotion graph and wanted to comment on how it made me aware of the wide range of emotions we as humans are capable of. A little off topic but looking at it reminds me that we were taught
WordWolf
It's also interesting to see what happened and what did NOT happen. We all know that vpw never went to his congregation and confessed his sins against them. That would have been required after havi
chockfull
I think when VPW taught that sincerity is no guarantee for the truth that is what they call a “Freudian slip”.
Posted Images
OldSkool
Its interesting wierwille was likely referring to the Textus Receptus if we go by the fifth century reference. Westcott-Hort used Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vaticanus that dates a century earlier as you noted. Yet - wierwille appearantly either didnt know this at the time pflap was published or was simply mistaken when pflap was published and forgot about westcott-hort or...yeah, who really knows. But wierwille was not a KJV only kinda guy, though he insisted his followers used a KJV with heavily edited center margins, like some kind of custom Scofield type study bible based on way theology that always seemed to be largely unintelligible cause the notes had to be written so small..I digress...Wierwille uses Westcott-Hort interchangeably throughout his publications and especially when it suited him...makes me wonder if he knew the difference until much later when he had people like Walter Cummins around who had a real education
This clearly shows either ignorance or sloppy writing with no cross checking by the author...mmmm...this your guiding light mike?
wierwille had a doctorate?....
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I’ve looked at critical Greek texts over the years and investigated that field to a small extent.
If you even spend a cursory amount of time reading about the field you come to quickly learn it is really a specialized field. It has a lot in common with archaeology. There are also the same names that keep showing up as experts in that area.
VPW was uneducated in that area as evidenced by numerous comments in different contexts.
Here is a basic Wikipedia link on the Greek New Testament NA28. If you read through it all and don’t censor the material it has several pointers to many different areas for investigative study.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My first excursions into this area were merely reading the introductions and prefaces to several Greek Interlinear texts. I don't remember when, but at some point in my 1970s New Testament Canon research it dawned on me that the "Critical Greek texts" were NOT named that way to indicate them to be the ancient texts that are the most critically important, as in a mild case of desperately important.
It was shocking to me that the word "critical" referred to criticism and judgement. Then I discovered that hardly any other grads had become aware of this. Not only that, but as I did some informal grad polls in the early 2000s, it became apparent the most grads, leaders included, thought the critical Greek texts originated in the early centuries, like the 3rd or 4th. That the ink was still wet on the Stevens Text in 1550 was entirely unknown in the grad population.
As I got to slowly understand the mechanics of how these texts were produced it became apparent to me that the process was much like archeology.
But lastly, in more recent decades, what amazes me the most are the inherent spiritual challenges that are in this field.
What the critical Greek texts essentially are, in a spiritual sense, is a bit alarming.
They are scholarly 5-senses detective projects aimed at unscrambling what the devil scrambled in the early church, starting a little before the apostles died. Scholars matching wits with the devil seemed like an unfair match to me. I got the impression of a wide open door the devil has to influence God's people, entrapping them in denominations, to prevent them from learning the power in the manifestations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You previously stated you were unfamiliar with confirmation bias. This is a prime example of how it works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How so?
It was the just terminology that I was unfamiliar with. That a bias could hinder critical thinking is totally obvious, even if it were to lack a name.
What I am searching for is a good name for the opposite of critical thinking.
You see, critical thinking is a bias itself. it is a bias against error and fraud and sloppiness.
It is a suspicion the error may lurk within an idea, so the idea under suspicion must be poked and prodded in every which way to see how it stands up to critical scrutiny. That suspicion is a good bias to have UNTIL the goal of truth is reached when all the critical thinking strategies are exhausted.
Once an element of truth has passed all the critical thinking tests, it can be regarded as relatively free of error and fraud and sloppiness. The proper way to then approach this element of truth is to embrace it with a positive bias and incorporate it deep into mind and life's activities.
I thought that this second, positive bias was called "confirmation bias" but I was mistaken.
So now I am searching for the technical term that describes this appropriate positive bias that truths deserve, AFTER they pass all the critical thinking tests.
But alas and alack, this notion of finally finishing the critical thinking tests is rarely considered in academia. What are we to call this process of driving a element of truth deep into mind after it has passed the critical thinking tests?
IF there is no term, I guess we will have to make one up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Grandiosity might be a nice place to start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Like I said in an earlier post today, the 5- senses working of the texts is a scholarly effort to match wits with the devil. We were taught in the AC that working the 5-senses angle the best we can is important, and textual analysis has its place. However, the tipping of scales over the devil's skillful scrambling comes NOT via 5-senses research techniques, but by revelation from the Author.
The only way we can get an upper hand on knowing the Word and will of God is by God Himself intervening and giving us this most necessary help. Scholars eschew final absolute knowledge this way. They may acknowledge that the Biblical writers had access to the Author, but not us. That kind of guidance died with the Apostles is the best attitude they can muster, as far as I have seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't understand the nomenclature phobia that persists here. It is necessity, not grandiosity, that drives the evolution of language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Wrong all the way across the board. Wierwille and pflap have an obvious glaring error and u refuse to see it and retort with an imagined reality that u likely call spiritual...as in spiritual perspective or whatever ..this is why I call out confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance when I see it...and it's something I'm working through in my own life so no fingers pointed anywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You really don't understand the meaning of critical text, textual criticism or critical thinking. The word critical/criticism really throws you for a loop. Victor was confused about this, also. I could explain it all to you, but it's clear you are unwilling to learn, to find out. I won't waste my time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You still don't understand critical thinking or confirmation bias. You are willfully ignorant of what those terms mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You don't understand how language changes, either. And you don't want to understand. Again, I could explain it and provide some links, but I won't waste my time, and you don't have the time -- all your projects keep you too busy to learn.
I'll give you a hint: language changes, it doesn't evolve. Find out for yourself what drives language to change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yeah, I am only recently becoming aware of it's use in serious circles, and still learning about how GreaseSpot posters are using it.
Is there is a bias against the notion of "confirmation bias" in the sense that it cannot be used in a constructive and useful way?
I'm asking, because I am new to the term.
I think I first started hearing "confirmation bias" being used to analyze why crazy conspiracy theories proliferate. This was long ago, 80s & 90s Art Bell late night radio kind of talk.
It didn't seem to be a part of normal news media and conversation back then. I didn't hear "confirmation bias" used seriously until the recent decade when conspiracy theories entered the political realm.
*/*/*/*/*/*/**
But critical thinking skills I knew of since Jr. High. I was a Sherlock Holmes fan and read every adventure, twice. In my teen age stereo electronics experiments, I had to apply critical thinking skills properly, or suffer the consequences of getting jolted with 110 volts of house electricity. Getting shocked a couple times was all I needed to get real critical and suspicious of any exposed electronics in sight. In college Physics classes these same skills had to be fine tuned to get the right numerical answers (plus show all my work how those numbers were arrived at) on final exams.
But I think it is ironic and even funny, that people think the application of critical thinking skills (CTS ?) is required at all times and for all topics. This strikes me as cartoonish, or like an exaggerated SNL sketch… like the Church Lady.
There are proper times and places to lighten up on the intense application of these CTS.
Moses was the meekest man on Earth at one time.
But "meek" got demoted in modern language.
Moses, it looks to me, knew how to switch off (click) his CTS, and get meek to take it in with no resistance or suspicion of error. Oh, I am sure Moses had to turn his CTS back on (click) after learning and receiving time was over. Everyone knows that not having CTS on most of the time out in public, makes one an easy target, known in NYC as a sucka.
Both meekness and gullibility in modern language can describe the INAPPROPRIATE turning off (clunk) of CTS.
But what gallant, noble sounding nomenclature do we have for the appropriate switching off (click) of CTS, like Moses did when he was meekest or coach-able-est?
The word “coachable” was worked some in the 80s TWI-2 to describe good meekness, or Moses Meekness. Can we do better than that?
Doesn't some game manufacturer like Parker Brothers have a board game where players have to make up new words? Maybe there is one. We could play it HERE !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL.
You will, however, waste your time
by explaining that
you wont waste your time.
You should consider the folks at home read-only-ing this.
They might be willing to learn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The irony of this does not escape my sense of humor. I learned it by watching you.
*The read-only folks at home should not limit their reading to GSC, victor wierwille, Mike, or Nathan_Jr. They should read deeply, widely. They should find out for themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
And let's not forget to pound out a hearty keyboard "hello" to all the historians hailing from the mid-2000s reading this, and behind them the cyber-archeologists piecing together their competing "Critical Grease Texts" and wondering what a food fight is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I rest my case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. INITIALLY I was thrown for a loop by the term "critical" , but then I got myself edumacated and learnt it up to be the scholars criticizing or RATING the veracity of various ancient manuscripts, usually fragments. That made sense to me then. They were rating things like the way archeologists rate items on various parameters.
The term "critic" never bothered me again after that. But what did bother me was how few other grads knew it, once I knew it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Earlier on this thread I had written:
What I experienced in PFAL and my early twig years was liberating and showed me how the Bible fits for my life. I saw how unsupervised, uneducated, young people with holy spirit could form a local extension of the Body of Christ. I got a relationship with the Father and with the Son out of the deal. All of that is intact, and thriving to this day.
I finally did see savage wolves start to move into TWI-1 slowly a few years later, and in 15 years they had ruined the ministry that had set me free. I am still free because I latched onto the Bible and the part of the ministry that was good, and avoided the parts that were not best.
OldSkool wrote:
…Except you can't see that the savage wolves cobbed together the savage doctrines they savagely teach
and the end result is people are led away from Christ.
I think that the savage doctrines were entirely in the TVTs and perpetuated by a minority subset, that is, only SOME the Corps, a slim minority. This nasty toughness grew during the 1980s, and johniam has documented the decline in cheerfulness that happened simultaneously.
And I agree that these influences within the ministry did lead SOME away from Christ, but that too was a slim minority. As the 1980s chugged by less and less good was happening.
It was different in the 1970s for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
chockful,
Thanks for your background story earlier on Christmas Day. -
You wrote:
“Forge your own path and be free.”
-I am doing that, in a couple of independent ways. I get to minister to the valley of human need in odd ways. One way is in my dance adventures, going strong for ten years now. I’ve become an entertainer of sorts, networking with older retired musicians inland where I live, and with the younger Deadhead community down at the hippie beach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Cool! Keep on keeping on. My main hobbies these days are musical. Lead guitarist and Im learning to sing...which strangely sounds like a tortured cat at times but Im getting there...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm getting caught up on old responses.
*/*/*/*/***/**/*/*/*/*
Nathan_Jr wrote:
Confirmation bias is a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[8][9] Confirmation bias cannot be avoided or eliminated, but only managed by improving education and critical thinking skills.
Ok so what is the opposite of critical thinking? Coachable, meek learning?
Catholics have a Confirmation ceremony for those who had “arrived.”
Once a seeker finds the truth on some one thing,
the seeker is incorporate that truth element
into his life and perspective, and teach it to others.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*//*
I had written:
NOW, we can move on to the other discussion of how can we know for sure that there is no consciousness immediately after death. I mean hours after last breath.
As in Luke 23:43? The criminal would be unconscious in paradise with the master?
No, that verse doesn’t teach it. That verse just got its comma moved to reflect it..
But plenty of other verses do teach it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
One of the crazy things I learned with the Dead cover bands is dance to the Garcia diddling they do so well. Somehow I learned I could dance to the lead guitarists by "playing the air guitar" with my feet. So far I only fell once!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What makes you think these scholarly types are 5 senses as opposed to Christian?
The only difference I see is they have real Dr degrees as opposed to a correspondence doctorate in homiletics.
They compare through analysis texts which regularly show scribe error leading to doctrinal error.
You are hilarious jumping from one scenario where you come off like a researcher then now this where it is “scholars matching wits with the devil.” And how that’s “not fair” lol.
Is this ostrich cult research ?
Stuck on your 24 year old delusions refusing to look at ANYTHING more recent or modern including logic, facts, discoveries, science, or anything else outside some box you labeled “collaterals” but you won’t even honestly discuss with us or evaluate said “collaterals”
So called ministry and their so called collaterals.
You have your very own Cargo Collateral Cult
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.