From Alice in Wonderland, Chapter XII, by Lewis Carroll:
‘Let the jury consider their verdict,’ the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the sentence first!’
But, Alice was WRONG! Dead Wrong!
It may sound all very enlightened to declare that antecedents must be considered before conclusions can be reached. In the real and practical world
this is utter foolishness. I mean, that is why they are called Ante-cedents, correct? That is correct. But that is not the way it works. Here’s the way it works;
- You reach a conclusion about the way things are or should be, THEN
- You go in search of evidence preceding the drawn conclusion to fit it.
If something doesn’t fit, then it’s very simple–you disregard it or throw it out. Hopefully you can do this before anyone else notices the “something else” that doesn’t fit or, God Forbid, even contradicts the desired Sentence (conclusion). The less discussion about the hypothesis, the more compelling the theory. Yes?
Natural Scientists, Theologians, Politicians, and Lawyers do very well by themselves counting on this wisdom. If you can’t trust this bunch, then just who ARE you supposed to trust? eh? hmm?
I give Natural Scientists a large benefit of the doubt, but still take all pronouncements from the Scientific Community with a large grain of salt. Medical “Practitioners” get a very slim portion of that benefit. Don’t even get me started on the rest of the gang.
Hey, I’ve ranted long enough here. Thinkest Thou?
Thanks for letting me share.
Natural Scientists, Theologians, Politicians, and Lawyers don’t get a bad reputation because they make so much money. They get a bad reputation because they, in such large numbers, are fools and/or liars AND they make a bundle of money doing it. Notice the antecedent, please.