We all have different ways of processing the information around us.
Some of us must have the facts/evidence presented in what I would call a linear/serial stream: this fact followed by a related observation to equal a certain conclusion.
Others are capable of more parallel logic: these observations coupled with these facts form this conclusion.
Neither of them is “right” nor “wrong” in the same way that what tastes good to me might not taste good to you.
We can observe that when it comes to science there is a right and a wrong way: the scientific method is right and everything else is wrong. Only, that method is valuable for proving out theories, not necessarily generating them.
Theories are often generated by being open to observations that don’t fit the accepted standard. Imagine the difficulty of proposing that the Earth is round or that the sun isn’t moving from East to West it is instead us spinning at 24,000 miles an hour.
It doesn’t look or feel that way.
It seems to me important that when we’re in the supposition or theory-generating mode that we do our best to be ok with being wrong. 1+2 doesn’t necessarily have to result in 3 (because 1 and 2 might not be the bits we should be concerned with).
Our end biases and opinions shape not only our worldview but protect and defend our self-image (our status role). Those of us who stand on one extreme side of the fence—only scientifically verified conclusions matter—will always be unwilling to hear the others shouting across that fence that their experience is different.
And vice versa.
I think progress—true forward progress—happens to those open to hearing voices on both sides of the fence.
Paul McGowan / PS AUDIO