Weedy Questions

When questions arise, they are to be taken with seriousness enough to be called hypotheses. The instability that a question implies looks for resolution through testing.

In science, there is little more valuable than a next good question. Here, it is an indicator that a previous question bumped against the limit of its testability. We may not have the technical means to resolve the matter, and it must be held as a question until it can be addressed.

It may also indicate a question was tested and was resolved negatively – the question was based on an incorrect premise or the data shows it to have been disproved.

It is always anticipated that a question will find a positive outcome. When it is confirmed, a new question now needs to be anticipated so we can continue to move one step closer to what might stand behind the idea of “reality”.

If a question is to be useful, it requires a faithful execution of a process to find out and abide by the result to move beyond a wishful thought or build upon a new tool (resolved question).

If the same question keeps arising in the face of a negative outcome, it can be asked if the question is being asked for some reason other than a resolution. One example of a pernicious question (a question weed) comes in politics where a question has been shown not to be true but is still insisted to be held open (the outcome of an election, the counting of votes). In such a case, the question reveals a willful desire of every two-year-old attempting to control their world through a big “No!” Or the confusion of adolescent yearning for an affirmation of one utopia or another, raising it to life-or-death stakes.

When a question comes back with a “No!” The question needs refinement into a better question or accepted until it can be resolved – using the same data, or cynic skepticism is not useful.

The question of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election has moved from one of being asked in order to be resolved into a blunt instrument meant to short-circuit an undesired result. A mistaken idea has been repeated, and we again have to learn a religious axiom that unrequited desire leads to suffering.

As long as people base their search for “happiness” on a result fitting what they think is their short-term best interest and ignoring negative constraints, they will spin their wheels in blown sand until they are stuck enough to either abandon their vehicle or call for assistance. This seems to be where we are with a political use of questions while denying scientific and religious appreciation of questions that come up short and can lead to a better question, being honest about living well in the face of disappointment.

If a question is still asked without a willingness to take its result and build a better question, it will soon be seen as a Big Lie or the titillation of a side-show barker selling fantasy to the next-born sucker.

If we can learn the value of a disproved questions, the 2020 election will have provided a great service. If not, we are in for a rough ride through multiple coups, revolution, and the use of violence to settle a question. This will be a return to the harmful idea of “might makes right”.

For the moment, there needs to be a small grin from a recognition that the “people for freedom from reality” are using “big brother” techniques to control others, even a majority of others. Here, freedom is a false flag that covers a multitude of flies masquerading as a “dear leader”. Such lordship always devolves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.