yeah, i'm on the side of the sheep

What are you doing there? And how does the sheep feel about it?!!!

The sheep said "Naaaaaaaaaaaa"

It seems that the option ''illustrate principals'' has got more support 3-2. My own ''speak for themselves'' is probably against my epistemological basic assumptions. But genuine inductive thinking must be kept at high value.

Posted on: October 13, 2008, 08:20:46 am

---

I like to think and work inductive. From a little facts towards a bigger picture. I have also self-made concept called ''genuine understanding''. Hard to explain. 

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts dont do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts dont stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape

Im still waiting...Im still waiting...Im still waiting...

David Byrne and Talking Heads, Crosseyed and Painless

Quote from: tekla on October 13, 2008, 08:30:59 AM
[ Facts dont do what I want them to do

They do actually more than the principals.

In his 1988 speech at the Repub Convention, Ron Ray-gun, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"  In fact flubed his lines and said


"Facts are stupid things."

He was right, for once.

Shouldn't that be principles and not principals?

Ignoring spelling, or possible cultural differences, you could argue for both options. 

Context is important.  If you know the full context of a set of facts, then they can stand alone.  (Of course, knowing the full context means that they aren't standing alone...)

If you don't know the context, you can still use facts to illustrate principles.  A set of facts could show that there is a predictable cause-effect chain in a system that you don't know much about.  If there are similar facts tied to similar systems, you can argue that there are common principles involved.

The General Theory of Systems works on this.  For example, the chaos of air flow around a newly lit match tends to resemble the chaos of gas flow around a newly formed star.