Hypothetically:
“All those who lives in Perak must fill out the Form 3A(b).”
You do not live in Perak. Do you have to fill out the Form 3A(b)?
Well, many individuals who deem themselves logical might answer no to this question. But really, there’s not enough information to assume the most correct response. The possible case is, that maybe you don’t need to do so but actually you may also have to.
When it comes to casual analytical process, we can break it down to series of questions to try to understand our obligations on that particular matter. The process of understanding might educate us to be more considerate of the current issue. However, towards the end, when it comes to urgent counter responses, our ability in decision making is put at test. Hence, is it fair to act without enough information or if it is considered acceptable, should urgent responses be deemed the best solutions?
The point is, our interpretations of language are often inconsistent. When ambiguity may be the source of error but it is us humans that often make mistakes in reasoning, and we make those mistakes over and over again. Hence, how do we, as humans, practice tolerance, under the spirit of humanity, for both side of the one who questions the ridiculous riddle and the one who is supposingly ridiculed?
And oh by the way, this entry must have nothing to do with the current political scenes in Perak. Just so you know.
Although, hypothetically, I could’ve actually used a different state to name here with 14 (or is it 19?) others to choose from. Ah, this is annoyingly provoking.
“All those who lives in Perak must fill out the Form 3A(b).”
You do not live in Perak. Do you have to fill out the Form 3A(b)?
Well, many individuals who deem themselves logical might answer no to this question. But really, there’s not enough information to assume the most correct response. The possible case is, that maybe you don’t need to do so but actually you may also have to.
When it comes to casual analytical process, we can break it down to series of questions to try to understand our obligations on that particular matter. The process of understanding might educate us to be more considerate of the current issue. However, towards the end, when it comes to urgent counter responses, our ability in decision making is put at test. Hence, is it fair to act without enough information or if it is considered acceptable, should urgent responses be deemed the best solutions?
The point is, our interpretations of language are often inconsistent. When ambiguity may be the source of error but it is us humans that often make mistakes in reasoning, and we make those mistakes over and over again. Hence, how do we, as humans, practice tolerance, under the spirit of humanity, for both side of the one who questions the ridiculous riddle and the one who is supposingly ridiculed?
And oh by the way, this entry must have nothing to do with the current political scenes in Perak. Just so you know.
Although, hypothetically, I could’ve actually used a different state to name here with 14 (or is it 19?) others to choose from. Ah, this is annoyingly provoking.
0 comments:
Post a Comment