I am a classically trained critical thinker. I have a degree in Substantive Law & Principles of Investigations (a discipline within Justice Administration). During my course studies I was trained to detect both evidence and patterns of evidence, and to follow those patterns to a reasonable and defensible conclusion. These conclusions include both evidence that supports a reasonable conclusion of potential guilt or those that draw a positive position in favor of no guilt. Patterns emerge that will either determine guilt, no guilt, or that insisting on guilt is unreasonable. Patterns will also emerge that determine a positive position of innocence, that a determination or even suspicion of guilt is “unreasonable”. This will often be determined with what is called exculpatory evidence.
These same disciplines should also be used to investigate and determine whether belief in various things; stories, worldviews and philosophies – are either reasonable or unreasonable.
On this site you will find challenges to what I call the “groupthink” that has continually increased in recent decades. This group think seems to be increasing during our Internet Information Age. This is a fascinating and befuddling contradiction in my mind because the internet and smartphone technology have provided more resources and information at our fingertips than any other period of human history. Yet, in my observation, our population is not getting smarter or more informed. It seems to me we are being ‘dumbed down’.
Too many people are simply not objective, but instead rush to look for what they believe is evidence, real or not, that supports their biases or predetermined conclusion. This is often referred to as “information bias” and “confirmation bias“.
I have launched this website with the goal and hopes of exploring many various topics of today’s world, including culture and politics. My goal is to follow patterns of evidence and make a defensible conclusion for myself about these topics and share them online for other people to consider and debate.
