|
|
|
Errata |
|
|
Typographical and Content Errors in the bookComments regarding questions of content:The Truth-Driven Thinking book is very much about not only our human fallibilities and how no one is immune – without regard to profession or how analytical we may think we are. Essentially, it is about how difficult it is to find the truth. I often say that I used to know a great deal, but that the older I get the less I really know for sure. This is especially so because of the illusive nature of truth. It’s why science and reason are the preferred tools, not the perfect tools for betterment. New information can always come along to change our current understandings. That’s fine and we must be open to it. On page 27 I boldly say (in all caps) that I certainly don’t pretend to have any lock on truth – in fact I admit I’m a rather emotional person from a small Midwest town, who is only an expert “generalist.” In fact I am prone to exaggeration like the next person (perhaps more). I also make very clear on page 28 (also in all caps) that the important thing isn’t the controversial stands I’m going to take, but that I’m arguing the “other side” of conventional wisdom to make a point about the “WAY we think and reason.” This is the very purpose and core thesis of book – that we tend to reason emotionally and accept things as true that are unsupported by science and reason. The point is not primarily that I’m trying to claim to be right or wrong in any specific assertions. Certainly there are scientists and academics far above my pay grade that can lead and engage in the in-depth type of analysis required (see our suggested reading list). So rather than the issues, the goal is to open our minds to the possibility that we get things wrong. Now with that said, I also agree that all issues matter, and intellectual honesty and Truth-Driven Thinking demand that I be willing and happy to abandon and recant any untrue or misleading information I argue. It’s about the dialogue! I’ve "put some things out there" – now let’s talk about them. This page is where we can do that, when I'm duly convinced: Content Errata:*p.30, lines 21 & 24. Was: "...oranges are not really what we think of as orange in color, but rather are a green or greenish-yellow shade in nature? ...It's true! Typically, oranges are not a color you would define as “orange,” or anything like what you buy in the store or see in TV advertisements." - Should be: "...many oranges are not really what we think of as orange in color, but rather are a greenish-yellow shade in nature? ...It's true! Typically, oranges are not a color you would define as “orange,” and are not the color you buy in the store or see in TV advertisements." (notes: while I'll stand behind the three sources I cited, these subtle changes are important as there are certain types of oranges that truly are what we think of as "orange," and I exaggerated the point (told you I was prone to exaggeration:-). (content corrections - e-mail to: sgibson@truthdriventhinking.com) Typographical Errata:*p.175, line 22. Was: Clinton Administration 1998. Should be: Clinton Administration (1998).
*p.175, line 27. Was: Muslim Terrorist Threat is real. Should be: Muslim terrorist threat is real.
*p.177, line 15. Was: Amazing Randy Should be: Amazing Randi
*p.197, line 14. Was: ...lacking in ineffectiveness. Should be: lacking effectiveness. (typographical corrections - e-mail to: sgibson@truthdriventhinking.com)
|
|
Send mail to
sgibson@truthdriventhinking.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|