Thirty-one weeks of #criticalthinking in 365 concepts are completed.
This new week that starts today we will reach three fifths of our journey.
We are dealing with a lot of case studies that demand our full attention in using all of our tools and processes that we introduced previously to ask questions and based on answering them to analyze and understand by ourselves what is happening in each case independently and by aggregating them in the entirety of the world taken in for analysis little by little.
Naturally, when introducing a case study I may be suggesting a direction for the analysis. It's obviously not the only direction possible. Yet, it is the one that very likely is obtained upon balancing a lot of factors in the analysis. Anyone can choose a different path in their analysis and hence a different conclusion (or claim) and then support that conclusion with their own facts and thorough analysis.
I challenge folks to conclude, if they so decide, with a sound and strong argument that the bees or the octopuses or the whales can all disappear and we should be proud to have caused their extinction for mere temporary financial profit. My brain can hardly make such arguments, but I'd be happy to comment professionally on your attempts if you choose to make them. I encountered nonetheless such arguments during my few years. I heard them from folks whom I deeply respect, but the arguments themselves seemed getting to
me after just passing through and being repeated in the words of the friends making the arguments. They were told with a lot of conviction but without a lot of thinking through of one's own, as the one mentioned in the story with Joule above. Joule was much more adamant about any disappearance of anything God made as being blasphemy—even at the mere thought of such disappearance—than the friends who today would simply say it's God's will that species disappear and they were created to serve us and other species will rise to serve us in the future. I was and am surprised to see how the same God apparently changed their mind from Joule's times to today. And, more importantly, how did we figure on the change of mind?
Why would someone born in the 1960s not be entitled to see the sign of the 34 million years old bee's existence and be impressed by it simply because someone else born a few decades earlier and a world away wanted to forever destroy the ancient bee's petrified sign under a mess of construction sites for privately owned two bedroom houses with two car garages? To revert back to Feynman's questions, where does God resolve this dilemma and how come we're not actually left to resolve it ourselves by deciding using our own moral compass and self trust that we can balance things right ourselves? Apparently back 50 years ago we were able to. It must be that we always were and thus we still are, and we'll always be able to think better for ourselves.
211. Play. Then play some more. Don't fear results. Let curiosity lead your way.
This new week that starts today we will reach three fifths of our journey.
We are dealing with a lot of case studies that demand our full attention in using all of our tools and processes that we introduced previously to ask questions and based on answering them to analyze and understand by ourselves what is happening in each case independently and by aggregating them in the entirety of the world taken in for analysis little by little.
Naturally, when introducing a case study I may be suggesting a direction for the analysis. It's obviously not the only direction possible. Yet, it is the one that very likely is obtained upon balancing a lot of factors in the analysis. Anyone can choose a different path in their analysis and hence a different conclusion (or claim) and then support that conclusion with their own facts and thorough analysis.
I challenge folks to conclude, if they so decide, with a sound and strong argument that the bees or the octopuses or the whales can all disappear and we should be proud to have caused their extinction for mere temporary financial profit. My brain can hardly make such arguments, but I'd be happy to comment professionally on your attempts if you choose to make them. I encountered nonetheless such arguments during my few years. I heard them from folks whom I deeply respect, but the arguments themselves seemed getting to
me after just passing through and being repeated in the words of the friends making the arguments. They were told with a lot of conviction but without a lot of thinking through of one's own, as the one mentioned in the story with Joule above. Joule was much more adamant about any disappearance of anything God made as being blasphemy—even at the mere thought of such disappearance—than the friends who today would simply say it's God's will that species disappear and they were created to serve us and other species will rise to serve us in the future. I was and am surprised to see how the same God apparently changed their mind from Joule's times to today. And, more importantly, how did we figure on the change of mind?
Why would someone born in the 1960s not be entitled to see the sign of the 34 million years old bee's existence and be impressed by it simply because someone else born a few decades earlier and a world away wanted to forever destroy the ancient bee's petrified sign under a mess of construction sites for privately owned two bedroom houses with two car garages? To revert back to Feynman's questions, where does God resolve this dilemma and how come we're not actually left to resolve it ourselves by deciding using our own moral compass and self trust that we can balance things right ourselves? Apparently back 50 years ago we were able to. It must be that we always were and thus we still are, and we'll always be able to think better for ourselves.
211. Play. Then play some more. Don't fear results. Let curiosity lead your way.
212. Culture. But of course.
213. It is what we don't see that could make the true value. Always.
214. Observe. Infer. Do it again. And again. Learn from mistakes. Learn some more. Even more. Without feeling ashamed about original ignorance. Let ignorance fuel curiosity.
215. Research agenda(s). Thoroughly and widely and deeply enough defined, and proactively and systematically pursued.
216. Dinner table training.
217. Can we say _absolutely priceless_?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/aspetrescu_national-geographic-on-linkedin-quantifying-activity-6586383667407446016-edHQ
What are the most important lessons we got this week based on the cases patented and some more similar ones that you may seek and look at yourselves?
What are the most important lessons we got this week based on the cases patented and some more similar ones that you may seek and look at yourselves?
Adrian S. Petrescu, Ph.D., J.D.
InnovationTrek
ASPetrescu@alumni.pitt.edu
ASPetrescu@InnovationTrek.org
InnovationTrek
ASPetrescu@alumni.pitt.edu
ASPetrescu@InnovationTrek.org
No comments:
Post a Comment