3 Very Large Objects In Space Flying To Earth (and 'the truth')

[Ali Quadir]

My guess is that the example incident with the female probably involved personal elements (and thus representing a different situation entirely) which were conveniently left out for the sole purpose of making a stronger point.

No, it's an analogy of a similar situation I supplied with the hope that you might have experienced it too.

You do understand that by "personal elements" I didn't mean you personally. I meant the woman was upset due to the involvement of something she identified with personally. This is why I was saying the analogy didn't hold.

Don't you think Ashim has the same type of identifications?

Here you're making assumptions based on your own frame of reality and projecting them towards me as if *I* was doing something. In this case embellishing the truth. You are projecting this interpretation towards me. It is not me that is doing something. you are doing this. If you have an issue with your projections you should take it up with your ego. Instead you ascribe to me what is essentially your own contribution to the conversation.

But it's not projection that is in operation. I can make an assumption or express an opinion without the contention of actually knowing a motive (which would be projection).

I would consider any assumption a projection. Because it is adding your own context to what another person said. We're not even speaking about right or wrong here.

But for example, when I ask you "Do you love to drink wine? Or beer?" I'm apparently not making any assumptions about you. But there is one. That you love to drink one or the other. I may not even be consciously aware of my assumption. In regular communication this isn't relevant.

But in students learning to make polls you often see mistakes like this.

Yet "defending the general tendency to state something, as if it were true, without qualification or means of support" is to a point what I am doing. So you are indeed calling my position absurd.

It would be absurd to me if my understanding at this point is correct.

If your reasoning is sound and your understanding correct your conclusion must be accurate. So I cannot argue with that.

To explain: Remember I did say it would be better to qualify the information. But I also said it was the readers responsibility to think about what the other person has said. When we encounter an apparent absurdity it may be more appropriate to conclude we're not looking from the right context. Instead of assuming the speaker to be wrong, we should question the context we ourselves supplied subconsciously.

Obviously, we can not conclude anything unless we reach a level of satisfaction with our understanding.

And that level of satisfaction depends on the cut off points we pick for our knowledge... Bringing us full circle

But important to note that satisfaction is therefore part of our context... The demands we put on formal scientific communication is much higher than the demands we put on regular person to person discussion. And sometimes we mismatch our levels of satisfaction.

When I say: "They say that firemen are the right sort of people"
Some people accept this no questions asked. Others may have a whole lot of arguments about the sentence.. Who is they, what is right? And what exactly is a fireman?