"
"
This work does not support its premises and positions with data or with references to the publications of others.
It is not that the positions taken in Truth in Uncertainty are not based on facts or on the published thoughts or investigations of others. They are. The facts and the thoughts of others are implicit.
If you need facts backing the positions taken in TiU you can look them up yourself. By the same token, if you find or have evidence that challenges any premise or position in TiU, please share them through the forum or by making direct contact.
Challenges are welcome. Have any significant variables been missed? Is any of the reasoning based on false or weak premises? Are there compelling published facts and reasoning that would demand significant changes to TiU? Are there lateral perspectives that need to be considered and included?
The work has already had one major re-write as a result of living and working in the Middle East and on the Indian sub-continent.
It is possible to back virtually any position with facts and references to experts. That may make the position look more credible to the reader, but is it therefore also more valid or true?
Supposed data and facts often get in the way of the truth, or are used to prop up untenable positions in which people have invested emotionally. Moon landing, 9/11 and Holocaust deniers do this. Somehow they find facts and experts to support their highly improbable positions and to convince others, or at least sow the seeds of doubt in others. On the climate change debate both sides are able to call on facts and experts that support their positions, and each side validly accuses the other of serving vested interests.
Data and evidence are essential to advancing knowledge, but they do not have to be explicit and repeated if they are readily available to any interested party, as they now are over the Internet.
If the world view of any visitor to the TiU site is significantly at odds with that of TiU, it is very unlikely that any facts or references that may have been included in the work would have changed that person's position. In fact they would probably have left the site immediately, or would have countered with their own facts and references.
TiU would get an 'F' as an academic work. But that is an inherent part of its singularity and its challenge to the status quo.
© TruthInUnCertainty 2019
Article by: R A Mulholland
http://www.truthinuncertainty.com/
