ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I've seen the statements, and so have you. Grand and universal they stand and because they are said in such a way that they appear authoritative, we take them and run with them as if they are "proven," and need not be questioned.
For instance, how is it known that a particular thing will result in a particular response? I have heard posters tell us the negative consequences of a change, but seldom have I seen them tell us why they believe such a thing. Claiming that X will be the case if we do Y does not, in itself, prove anything. It is an assumption.
So the question: "How is this known?" must be asked of any conjecture. It is a difficult question to answer if you are trying to anticipate what ill happen in the future if you change something in the present because you have no direct way of measuering what will happen until after the change is made. And thus you have to use something other than direct measurement. There are at least two lines of reasoning you can use to provide a basis for your claim.
First, you can use parallel cases. If a change was made that caused X to happen and the change you are wanting to make is similar, you can anticipate it, too, will cause X. Maybe not to the same degree, but at least it's more probable that the same type of change will result in the same type of effect, than not. And if the first change didn't cause disaster, to the degree the second is similar to the first, it probably won't cause disaster either.
Second, you can use reasoning. You can say, if I do X and people can do Y in response, is it more or less likely that, since Y is a negative to them, they will do it or not? If you give somebody the opportunity of taking all their money out of the bank and throwing it into the river how many people do you think will do so? Of course this assumes people are rational enough to see the negative consequences and to avoid them. Conversely, if you give them the opportunity to do X and it's a positive to them, are they more likely to do it or not?
So you have two ways to strengthen the accuracy of your conjectures. And two ways to weaken them as well. For if you discover, as you attempt to warrant your conjecture that the results will probably be more negative than positive, then you can change your opinion. This is what thinking it through is all about. It is asking ourselves not "what do I think is true," but also so examining why we think it to be true. It is saying to ourselves, 'how is this known," over and over, and thus holding ourselves to a more rigerous standard of what we know.
AJ
For instance, how is it known that a particular thing will result in a particular response? I have heard posters tell us the negative consequences of a change, but seldom have I seen them tell us why they believe such a thing. Claiming that X will be the case if we do Y does not, in itself, prove anything. It is an assumption.
So the question: "How is this known?" must be asked of any conjecture. It is a difficult question to answer if you are trying to anticipate what ill happen in the future if you change something in the present because you have no direct way of measuering what will happen until after the change is made. And thus you have to use something other than direct measurement. There are at least two lines of reasoning you can use to provide a basis for your claim.
First, you can use parallel cases. If a change was made that caused X to happen and the change you are wanting to make is similar, you can anticipate it, too, will cause X. Maybe not to the same degree, but at least it's more probable that the same type of change will result in the same type of effect, than not. And if the first change didn't cause disaster, to the degree the second is similar to the first, it probably won't cause disaster either.
Second, you can use reasoning. You can say, if I do X and people can do Y in response, is it more or less likely that, since Y is a negative to them, they will do it or not? If you give somebody the opportunity of taking all their money out of the bank and throwing it into the river how many people do you think will do so? Of course this assumes people are rational enough to see the negative consequences and to avoid them. Conversely, if you give them the opportunity to do X and it's a positive to them, are they more likely to do it or not?
So you have two ways to strengthen the accuracy of your conjectures. And two ways to weaken them as well. For if you discover, as you attempt to warrant your conjecture that the results will probably be more negative than positive, then you can change your opinion. This is what thinking it through is all about. It is asking ourselves not "what do I think is true," but also so examining why we think it to be true. It is saying to ourselves, 'how is this known," over and over, and thus holding ourselves to a more rigerous standard of what we know.
AJ