|
> Being judgemental always seemed immature to me This might just be a matter of vocabulary. I come from a tradition where "judgment" means pretty much the same thing as "inference", and it's not possible that inferential reasoning is "immature", so we probably disagree about definitions. > At what point have you made so much sense of anything that you can make a defining principle out of it? Well, there are certain fairly uncontroversial things. For example, I think that an argument's conclusions should follow, according to the rules of inference, from that argument's premises. This is just applying deduction to everyday life, as a principle. Of course, as with many real-life applications of general principles, it comes with caveats; in the case of deduction, for example, it calls for an understanding that most things in life don't lend themselves to formal, deductive arguments. Nevertheless, the point here is that I haven't made "so much sense of anything", but have borrowed the best (as far as I can tell) tools my culture has provided me with, in order to make sense of things. At this general level of description, it should be recognizable that I'm talking about things like math, science, and many others. > Is it a desire for deeper stability? Sure, that's part of it. This is why medicine exists, for instance. The human desire to normalize the wild oscillations of nature is why we make clothing, build shelters, grow crops, etc etc. > I never got the advantage of saying "well now MY model fits this pattern, PERIOD!". When confronted with human goals, some models succeed, and some don't. A theory of infection that doesn't lead to vaccines will, probably, succumb to the brutal fact that "this pattern of thinking isn't useful". |