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.

On the Peripheral of Baseball

I took my wife out to eat tonight at one of her favorites, Huey’s. Right after we ordered, she asked if I knew who Vin Scully is. Eventually she called to my attention the banner on the big TV screen behind me, “Remembering Vin Scully.

Of course I remember him. Being raised in Orange County, California, I listened to a great many of his broadcast of Dodgers games. Of course I never met him, yet he seemed to be a friend.

Naturally, one can say he was old. It was expected. Yet he is one that I would have preferred to hang around for a few more decades.

Of course, the banner was not an outright proclamation but it is the way the news speaks of those who are no longer with us. So I pulled out my cell phone and did something I never used it for before. I pulled up Google and then after entering just the letter v, his name popped up. It sort-of told me 2 things. Vin Scully was high the news for the day and he had a huge following.

Then, almost instantly after I tapped the top most listing, I saw the news story. I knew it would be there, yet I hoped it wasn’t.

As I said, I didn’t really know him but for the few hours each day during the season. However, as near as I can tell, he was a man I would have liked to know well.

He was an announcer, not one of the players. He was only on the periphery of the game. Yet, he truly contributed so much to baseball and all of us who enjoyed the game and couldn’t afford to go.

He will be missed. He is already missed.

God’s Solution

Okay. It has been close to a week since the last tragedy. Horribly, 19 kids and 2 teachers were killed. We have heard the solutions barked out repeatedly by the dems, including the occupier of the Oval Office. It would seem, according to them, it is as simple as outlawing guns.

I see two errors in that logic. Guns have been available since before the Constitution and mass killings have only started in about the last 40 years. Certainly, the problem wasn’t around when I graduated high school.

In the 1960s, the gun laws were minimal. When the shootings started, the gun laws increased. If they would be effective, the shootings would have decreased. Obviously, they had no effect. Indeed, the shootings have only increased.

On the other hand, the Republicans want us to turn our schools into fortresses. Perhaps we need motes around them with draw bridges. We need high windowless stone walls.

I don’t yet know but that might actually work. However, there are still weaknesses in such a plan, though I will not go into the reasons now. They should be obvious.

Instead, I ask why should anything be done? Certainly, I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t do anything. Rather, I ask why the necessity? What happened 40 years ago that started the killings?

To understand, we must look at four things that had its beginning in 50s and 60s

First, and most importantly, Americans began an indifference toward God, His word and His law. This caused many other problems.

Satin and his his minions, the communists, the atheist and people who claimed to have an expert knowledge of the human mind…particularly the child psychologist, started teaching ideas contrary to the Word of God.

As things started turning south, these minions began blaming anything and everything but themselves.

As time went by, the minions turned their attack toward the family, knowing the family is the basic building block of any nation.

Then they turned towards destruction of the schools. Beginning with the colleges, the college students undermined every element of our culture.

The result is that this country bears little resemblance to the 1950s.

Now, they have set their sights on the Constitution, specifically on the 1st and 2nd amendments, which are the most important ones. While on the way to these goals, they are well on the way to destroying our voting systems.

So, what should we do. It’s simple but so difficult. Turn back to God. If the people would turn back to God, the families will be healed and their will be no need for gun laws or motes around our schools.

It is God’s solution and it is the only one that will work. Everything else will fail.

The closer a people are to God, the simpler the solutions

The farther a people are from God, the more difficult the problems.

A Short Word About the Oscars

  1. I don’t blame Will Smith for hitting the guy. If I were in a similar situation, I’d do the same.
  2. The media made entirely too much of it. It would seem anyone who watches a few hours of news a day have seen the replay ten to fifteen times. That is about 8 or 9 times too many.
  3. The academy should take the hint. It has been decades since anyone has talked this much about the Oscar Awards. Maybe they should have 2 or 3 cage fights during the next awards featuring actors. At least one of the fights should be between women. It doesn’t much matter if they are real or not; it would do wonders for the ratings. It just shows to go, most everyone likes to see a good show or fight. It doesn’t really make much difference.
  4. They could sell DVRs of it showing various angles. It might have more success than their movies.
  5. Afterwards, everyone can go home and eat pizza as they all talk about it. That would be the best part.

The Best Place

I write this for one simple reason. Some people just can’t understand the sudden rise in crime. 1st let me suggest a couple of solutions for those who have stores that are subject to the recent crime wave. Armor your business so that it is difficult for the criminals to enter. That way, the criminals will do criminaling somewhere else. Hiring security is OK, but in the current environment, it will do little good and you just might get sued. Even when you when the suit, it will still cost you an arm and a leg. The lawyers have seen to that.

Then you build a solid anti-room for entering and one for exiting your business. This will ensure that only 1 or 2 at a time enter. While they are in the anti-room, require an ID and credit card. Notify them that they will be charged for anything they take or damage. Insist they sign an agreement before letting them into the area where you have your merchandise. Finally, before they leave, search them completely to make sure they are not taking what they have not paid for.

OR you can simply close the business and go to a city where such problems don’t exist.

This may not completely solve your problems but it just might force the cities to solve theirs.

NOW as for solving the problem.

It is simpler than you might imagine. Put the criminals in prison and keep them there as long as possible. Even if they are not rehabilitated, their criminal endeavors will be greatly reduced. Besides, it will put teeth to the saying that crime does not pay. It would seem, right now, it does.

As for why those in charge don’t already do this, that is simple too. They don’t want to. Those in charge of locking up the criminals are the Friends Of Criminals (FOC). Indeed, some are criminals. Why would they want to lock up their friends when it enhances their bank accounts to let their criminal friends do criminal things? As an aside, they are also friends of lawyers. Think of all the money they get out of it all.

So, instead of going after criminals, they go after those who go after criminals in every way they can. To be sure, they don’t like it when they are so embarrassed by honest people making them look bad. Besides, it is cutting into their profit. [Has anyone noticed? The Clinton slush fund(so-called charity) has drastically shrunk since they no longer have any influence to sell. On the other hand, I would expect that Joe will be a multi-billionaire when he leaves office, whether that is vertically or horizontally.]

Just remember, it is about power and money. Those who go into office without it, generally have plenty as they leave. Those that do leave without with power and money, we can truly label as honest, usually. To be sure, politics is a dog-eat-dog world. Sometimes, even the dishonest ones get eaten by the dishonest ones.

To go back to the main theme. The best way to have thriving businesses, keep the criminals in prison! It is the best place for them and keeping them there is the best for the honest folk. If a few lawyers go hungry, maybe that’s best too.

Speaking of criminals, why isn’t Fauci behind bars where he can’t invent any more viruses?

What Do You Suppose Joe Pays in Rent?

Where was it that Joe spent Thanksgiving? How much did he pay for rent? You say he didn’t pay rent? Do you really believe that? I don’t.

You might find this strange but wealthy, powerful people have lots of friends and they generally pay for them, one way or the other. Do you think Joe would stay in that big house if he had not power or money? After all, Joe is a true friend of criminal s and he has proved it.

Grabbing Anchors

About one month out of the election, McAuliffe realized he was quickly sinking. So he panicked. He realized he just inserted his foot in his mouth so he started asking for help. So though people did throw him flotation devices, he chose to grab onto the boat anchors: you know, Biden, Kamala Harris, Obama. I’m sure you can name a few more.

Then when he realized they weren’t working, he grabbed onto the big ship anchor, Randi Weingarten.

The one question I have is just how McAuliffe did as well as he did? Oh, yes. It’s all those FOCs spilling out of D.C. and into northern Virginia. Somehow, we really should do something about that.

Watch Out, Words HAVE MEANINGS

I watched an interview. I will leave the names out. They are not important. The important things are the words. The person being interview said we need to make sure only legal residents should be permitted to vote. Actually, that is incorrect. There are many legal residents that should not be allowed to vote.

First, not all legal residents are citizens and only registered citizens of age should be permitted to vote, and then only in their state and precinct. No one should be permitted to vote outside their precinct. It is sort of the way the founding fathers intended it. We do not need to have Mexicans or Canadians determining the outcome of our elections. Moreover, we do not need people in one county determining the outcome of another county’s election.

Just remember, a resident is not always a citizen. It seems sort of picky but it is so, so important.

Vaccines

One day when I was in the fourth grade, we came in from recess and there was a projector in the room. It had a good sized reel on it and it looked like it was ready to go. We were all thrilled because we realized we were going to see a movie. In this case, it was a movie put out by Bell Telephone about vaccines. At the time, they produced a number of very good educational movies intended for the lower grades. I wonder if anyone still does that, that is movies without a political slant to them. Well, I guess today they would call them videos and they likely would not need a projector. Any HD TV and a DVD would do.

At any, I got to thinking about the film the other day. Then I got to wondering if the films are still available. Seems to me, that Fauci should watch it. He might learn something from it. For that matter, many of his cohorts would as well.

Just why is that Fauci is not already in prison?

Something You Won’t Find

Here lately, we have seen boys/men competing with girls/women athletics. As strange as it might seem, there are some who consider this normal.

So, I decided to turn things around. Though it is rare, there are girls on boys’ little league teams. Oddly, we have even seen a woman trying out for an NFL team… as a kicker. I guess women are just as smart as men, but I don’t think that woman was so smart. If she got hit just one time by a man weighing 250-280 pounds running full speed, she would quickly change her mind, should she live through it.

There is, however, one thing you will never, never, ever see — a woman trying to compete with men in weight lifting. It is just casual to the most obvious observer that it is wrong. Now on the other hand, men competing with women? It’s already been done, though, in truth, one is just as dumb as the other.