Surprise, Not All Stove Are Hot

It is something, likely, as old as stoves. Most folks quickly learn not to touch hot stoves.

Actually, it is not so important today as it was a couple of centuries ago when ole Ben first started building stoves. Generally speaking, when someone would touch a hot stove, they were not apt to repeat it.

Actually, I suspect it went back even farther than that. Before there were stoves, there were fireplaces. Before fireplaces campfires, or their equivalent.

I even heard a tale of one of the big wigs at Levi learning not to kneel next to campfires…first time. It was then that they decided to remove one or two of the rivets from the area just below the fly of their famous canvas trousers.

The one thing brought away from the first experience was the probability of pain, sometimes a little embarrassment too. However, here’s the news. Not all stoves are hot. Not all rivets are hot. It just is that once exposed to these experiences we mostly come away thinking they are, or at least can be. It is referred to as inductive reasoning. Because the first stove we touch is hot, we assume all stoves are hot.

What if the reverse is true. What if the first stove you touch is ambient temperature? Do we then assume that all stoves are cool to the touch. If we do this, we expose ourselves to many painful experiences. This is called inductive reasoning.

While it is useful, it can easily lead to errors. For instance, if we see a brown Labrador retriever, it would be wrong to assume that all dogs are brown and weigh eighty pounds. Indeed, it would be wrong to assume that all Labs are brown. Oddly there are some that are black.

On the other hand, suppose we touch a hundred cool stoves. Can we then assume are stoves are cool? If we see a hundred brown Labs, are we to assume that all labs are brown.

You see, even though we see a large number of examples, we cannot truly assume anything.

Until we see a large enough number of examples, we cannot positively say that we know all labs are brown and that all stoves are cool. Even when working with large numbers, inductive reasoning can lead us astray.

I wish that kids in the eighth grade were required to spend a few hours learning about inductive and deductive reasoning. I am convinced the concept is extremely important in so many parts of life.

Let’s take for instance, the woman that is robbed by an African American. Is it right for her to be afraid of all African Americans? Of course, not. Yet, it may take her years to get over the experience. Our fears are not always founded on good logic. Indeed, her fear might keep her from many good friendships.

The somewhat opposite of inductive reasoning is deductive reasoning. In deductive reasoning, we draw conclusions from many, perhaps exhaustive numbers of examples. It is best that these examples are at random. It is the way that medical research is done. I suppose we can say that statistics and deductive reasoning are interrelated. The more the examples and the more random, the more accurate will be the stats deductive reasoning that depends on the stats.

If we have a random selection of a million dogs, it is likely that only a few will be Labs and we will likely see a few black dogs, white dogs and even a few multi-color dogs. Therefore, we can have a more accurate idea of the coloring of dogs. If we take a random measurement of a million stoves, we might actually find that only 30% are hot enough to cause pain, or even discomfort. (only a wild guess, not am actual statistic)

I’m not going to try to create an equivalent example with the thievery. It’s far too complex and there are too many ways it can go wrong with my imaginary statistics. Moreover, I am not going to suggest that a woman should get robbed a million times. Two or three maybe, but no more. Still, the principles remain firm. With a larger number of examples, we would be able to draw more accurate deductions.

However, we need to be careful about drawing snap conclusions. When we go from the millions of examples and try to derive a single situation from millions of examples, we can still be wrong. For instance, if I may. It would not indicate that a thief is of any ethnicity, and it would be wrong to make any such suggestion.

Yet, every day, I see some people blame Black men because of individual as well as vast statistical data. Those methods just don’t work. And, by the way, the methods don’t work on Caucasian policemen, again, regardless of past inductive or deductive reasoning. You cannot convict a policeman based on past experience just as the woman cannot convict based on past thieves.

Perhaps the most horrible example of inductive reasoning is when the person says, “Single parent families are just as good as two-parent families.” Then they go about calling out two, three or four examples of good kids brough up by single parents. That logic has two holes. First, it is based on a very small count of examples. Second, there is the probability that, if there is a second parent, the child would likely have turned out better. The statistics back it up. We are talking millions of examples not just two or three.

On the other side of the coin, I see people say that a particular person turned out good or bad because of his parent(s). The stats prove that some good kids come from bad or broken homes and bad kids come from homes with good parents.

In this case, the inductive logic gets us nowhere and the deductive logic only shows trends. The trend shows overwhelmingly that two parent homes are better. But logic tells us that it is only true if they are good parents. Abusive and or alcoholic parents rarely qualify as good parents. Yet, again, some good kids come from homes with abusive parents. Sorry. I have no explanation for that. I’m not sure there is one.

For those who are not truly familiar with the terms inductive and deductive reasoning, may I suggest you take an hour or two and look into it on the net. Most will find it far more complex than most of us realize. For instance, one thing that must accurately be determined in inductive reasoning is an accurate correlation. For instance, that dance by that Voo-do doctor likely has nothing to do with that solar eclipse. On the other hand, all that rain I dumped on my lawn the other day likely had nothing to do with the thunderstorm we got the next day, though it did seem a little coincidental. If we collected enough data, it is likely to be proved that the one thing had nothing to do with the other.

Baseball Strike?

So what? Who cares? (Other than the little people, you know, like the concession workers and ground keepers. Then, there are the stores and restaurants around the stadiums)

The truth is that I could care less. What we have here are a bunch of under worked over paid, spoiled men who refuse to appreciate what they have or the nation that made what all they have possible.

In my book, it’s time for us, all of us to ignore them, the basketball players as well as those who think football is the most important thing on earth. They need an education on the true priorities in life. If we, the fans go on strike for a couple of months, it would go a long ways toward that education.

I don’t guess that will never happen. I would guess most fans over rate the importance of a left hander with a good fast ball or curve.

Regardless, don’t expect me to cry if the players fail in their efforts. Don’t expect me to empathize with so much as one of the owners either.

The most important thing is to keep the most important thing the most important thing.

News flash, Football is not the most important thing. Hopefully, it never will be.

Honesty and Intelligence

Considering all of the number of dummycrats in The House, you would think they could find one honest one to lead the impeachment investigation.  Well, then again, maybe that is expecting too much.  It does seem that knowing how to lie is a requirement for them.

At least, they should find someone with a a little intelligence.  I mean, Schiff really made an idiot out of himself when he tried to lie about what President Trump said in the phone call.  I would say he just outright lied, but that is not true.  It wasn’t even a successful lie.  It was proven to be a lie almost before he finished it.

It just goes to show.  You cannot trust the dummycrats to do anything.  They aren’t even good at being dishonest.

By the way, this another proof positive that can’t count on someone with a college degree to be smart or honest.  It is also proof positive that you can’t believe anything a dummycrat says.

Respect

Short of murder or assault, one of the worst things one man can do to another is to put words in his mouth.  In a way, it is worse than physical assault.  While a man may recover from wounds, he might not ever recover from an assault on his reputation.

When Adam Schiff made up the words to the phone conversation, he was not just lying.  He was putting words in the mouth of President Trump.  At this point, if I were President Trump, I would not give the man the time of day until he issued a written apology, maybe not then.  I would want to make sure he meant it.

In the meantime, the man does not deserve to hold any kind of hearings.  How can anyone trust anything the man, or his cohorts say or write.

Moreover, the foreign service is put totally in the hands of the president.  The framers of The Constitution wisely decided that such things should not be done by “committee.”  Committee are too slow and indecisive.  Moreover, keeping a secret is much more difficult when hundred or so know it.  I don’t know how many are on the Intelligence Committee, but there are at least three or four aides for each representative. We are likely talking about more than a hundred people.

Therefore, any requirement by the congress to turn over any foreign correspondence is not only a bad idea; it is not constitutional.  Moreover, any spying by the CIA on the president is illegal.  Therefore, the only one doing anything illegal here is the so-called whistle-blower.

Finally, if the president cannot have a private conversation with other heads-of-state, he has been horribly hampered.  It is like a boxer who has but one arm.  Henceforth, those who talk to our president, even after President Trump leaves office, will have suspicions that the whole world might very well hear what was said.  Most assuredly, it will change what is said.

President Trump’s #1 Accomplishment

President Trump has accomplished so much that it is difficult to determine just which is his greatest accomplishment.  While he has not yet completely replaced Obama Care, it is all but gone.  In a year or so,  it will no longer exist; other than in our memories, or more accurately, our nightmares.

Certainly, he has done wonders for our economy.  He has brought back a bunch of jobs, particularly in manufacturing.  Some might not like it, but he has challenged the countries of Russia, China and Iran.  He pulled us out of The Paris Climate Conference, which would have been disastrous for our economy.

I am sure I have left out one or two things, but I have come to the conclusion that we have overlooked the one thing that was most important.  I say ‘we’ because, until this evening, I never considered it.

To the best of my knowledge, no one else has mentioned it, leastwise not directly.  In indirect ways, many have talked around it.  Some have even denied it, though they had no idea of it.

Actually, in a way, President Trump has come close to speaking on it, though I am sure it was not his intention.  His accomplishment will change things forever, regardless of anything else he has done.  It will change this nation for both liberals and conservatives, for Republicans and dummycrats.  The dummycrats would like to deny it, but, when and if confronted, they will have to admit it.

President Trump has exposed the media bias.  No more will people ever trust the news media.  Some will not trust the big newspapers and networks.  Many will not trust the conservative outlets.  To be sure, no one will ever have the total trust of all of us, as did Walter Cronkite.

A Little Misdirection

As an writer, I occasionally use the internet for research.  Currently, I am working on a book where I wanted to do some checking on camp-stoves, specifically the type that use Sterno fuel.

Now I have a slew of e-mails suggesting the purchase of camp-stoves.  My apologies to the merchants.  It was not my intention to misdirect you, but I am not interested in camp-stoves.  My days of camping are long behind me.  Besides, from what I learned of Sterno Stoves, they are not well suited for camping.  They have a hard time boiling water.  In my book, my character decided on the old gasoline type.  The flame burns hot and the fuel is readily available.

Don’t get me wrong, the Sterno Stoves do serve a good purpose, but not for survival.  The flame is not hot enough to boil more than a quart or two of water.  Propane or (or if available) is much better for most purposes.  There is a one burner version that is not much larger than the LP bottle and it can generate a good uniform flame for quite a while.  It would very likely be a good stove for power outages, unless like me, you have a gas stove.

The one real laugh I have about it all, those monitoring my internet queries often have a false impression of me and there is not one thing I can do about it.  None of there e-mails permit return messages.