Finding problems and solving them for a fee presents a problem for me. This industry is enormous and
multi-faceted. Some providers understand there is the possibility of
a conflict of interest stigma, and many have taken steps to eliminate
accusations. It's illustrative to cite diverse examples of the
binaural problem-solving business, where experts “find” your
problem, and then offer you a “solution” for a fee. Sometimes the prospect of "not" solving the problem is scary.
I like to find a bargain when I'm
shopping for an oil change. One of the best I've found is a multi-use
coupon offering 5 oil changes for $100. No time limit...and the
provider is a trusted community automotive vendor. I'm actually very
happy with the arrangement. During the oil and filter change process,
a technician also examines two dozen other fluid and mechanical
aspects of my car...just in case I want to hire him for some more
work. He's a problem finder and a problem solver. He's convenient,
because my car is already on the rack. Makes sense, and it's
convenient. No pressure. No intimidation tactics. I can just say
“no”.
It reminds me of the trip we took many
years ago, when we were leaving a little restaurant an excited
mechanic ran out from his shop and warned me: you have what looks
like a flat tire...you should let me check it to be safe...you may
need to get it fixed...it looks like it could strand you and your
family in just a few miles. He may have been a good Samaritan, but I
don't think so. I take care of my own tires, and when I walked around
to look, they were all just fine. Sounded like a trick to me. I saved
fifty bucks.
I saw the sign that offered a free
hearing check. I wondered if being able to hear high frequencies a
little better would be worth $7,000 per ear. I know a woman who paid
the $14,000, but she still can't hear very well at all. You can't
blame me for being skeptical.
I saw the web offer for the NRA to be
my advocate in Washington D.C. against the heinous anti-gun crowd. I
didn't realize there was so much going on, but apparently there is
(and there's a world-class propaganda campaign to convince me). There
were the problem and the solution conveniently advertised, tweeted,
posted, and aired so I could send a donation and join the
organization if I wished. I only did that one time. Now, I think the
gun advocate business is like a charity, where the administrative
costs are very, very substantial.
I don't want to believe the Saints and
Samaritans of the Earth would wave what they define as a terrible
problem at me and shout me down when I asked for evidence. Am I blind
to terrible problems? Don't I care? Is it time for me to renounce
skepticism and cave in to the really smart people?
Here's the problem with smart people:
It's the “says who?” situation. Frequently, a person whose job or
title sets him out from the rest of us lets it slip about “we
intellectuals”. This reminds me of a Proverb: “Truth is revealed,
not declared”. I like it, and it sends off a siren when I meet self
proclaimed members of “the intellectuals' club”.
So, when self proclaimed Saints and
Samaritans advocate for trillions of dollars to “save the Earth”,
I grab my wallet and go into a defensive mode, meekly asking for
evidence. No, intimidation won't get me off my position. Mobs of
faithful converts to Global Warming (caused by human kind) and cries
of impending armageddon won't move me. Testimonials from self
proclaimed intellectuals won't get it.
It makes good sense (prudence) that we
rigorously define the scientific aspects of the Earth's
“environmental crisis”. This is so we do not gloss over the
morality of knowing truth before we create foundational
assumptions. The danger, of course, is that building conclusions on
faulty foundations is imprudent (and immoral). If we successfully
define the factual extent of the problem, scientists, mathematicians,
and engineers will flock to help us build our solution. Then, we can
be sure our solution is right, not wrong...efficient, not wasteful.
Our solution should not be mostly right, right sometimes, or
relatively right...it needs to be to the best of our ability,
absolutely and universally right.
Proof is impossible so long as one fact
invalidates the assumption, so we must know all the facts. Opinions
represent a dangerous liability to scientific rigor, and conclusions
are invalid if they are based on factless opinions.
If there is an environmental crisis and
if nature has prescribed a deadline on implementing a robust solution,
this must be taken into account as a factor in the schedule of work
to be done. If the schedule nature has prescribed reveals imminent
doom, logical shortcuts are prudent.
But, excuse me for wanting a rigorous
definition of the problem and an exhaustive search for the real
facts. It's my way. I could just say I learned a world-class problem
solving process from the brightest men and women I've ever known, but
instead, I'll just be relentless. I know that'll work.
No comments:
Post a Comment