Jens:
> What if they are all conditioned - or must appear so to us in the
> present state of our knowledge? Does a good scholar then make an
> arbitrary choice and report only a part of his information, or does
> he leave it up to those he's talking to to take what they find
> important? I did the latter.
Ah, but a good scholar puts aside problems that he can't answer
either way for the time being and focuses immediately on what he
_can_ observe to build one's theory. Then, as a theory gets larger
in scope always based on reality rather than confusion, we may come
back to the problem that one originally couldn't solve and finally
solve it. Patience is key.
A good scholar doesn't confuse himself by "solving" a problem by
simply opening one's mind to every and any contradicting hypotheses
known to humankind. That's not a scholar; that's an anarchist.
= gLeN