Hello dbhalling,
Indeed. Perhaps it is different for you, but I am mostly surrounded by people with the wrong philosophy and answers... By my estimation, people are wrong about a great many things. Out of necessity I tolerate quite a bit, and where possible I try to persuade. Some of these wrong philosophies and answers are harmless to me, while others present a danger to my ability to freely practice my own philosophy. This is why I have a hierarchy. I focus my attention on those philosophies/answers on my list based on their capacity to impede me. In my field and throughout my life, I have always had to approach problems methodically, assessing, prioritizing the most urgent problems and tackling them first.

An Austrian economist with power may present an obstacle, but a Keynesian in a similar position could make my economic outlook impossible. For example: I place Rand/Objectivism's capitalism at the top of my hierarchy in the field of economic philosophy and Marx and Engels near the bottom. In between are various threat levels.

Faced with a multitude of enemies and being a fearless defender of what I believe in, I prioritize my foes and attack Goliath first! I will attend to his minions similarly. :) Should we not cut off the head of the snake? Some will not learn and must be defeated, while others, watching on the sidelines may learn from the spectacle.
To my way of thinking this is the most efficacious way of surviving to teach and hopefully persuade another day.

Regards,
O.A.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013...

And sometimes what appears to be the right answer again leads one down the wrong path. Sometimes, at least in theoretical science, there are more than one path to go which each satisfies the data but years or decades later turn out to be the same theory after new mathematical connections are developed. Correct answers in many cases need to be modified later. In most cases of measurement close is good enough, so one sets acceptable tolerances for answers. If you mean that nature in no case under the same state will give different outcomes, notwithstanding quantum physics which has inserted probabilities into measurements, you are most likely correct.

In philosophy, even ideas that appear correct will, with the finding of definitions being found full of floating abstractions or even platonic ideals, need to be rethought.

True

Forgetting they are enemies can and often does lead t disaster.

Rules established by institutions are not always logical. Even people who act in a seemingly illogical way can, on occasion, be successful, either because they're entertaining, or because they've discovered new facts that defy accepted rules of logic. Many scientific discoveries have faced an uphill battle against a community that believed such things impossible. Risk takers are often the most frowned upon members of society, despite the evidence that tells us they are the agents of change and innovation.

Hardly anyone uses explicit rules of thought and humans have been quite successful though might be much more successful should they all be educated in methods of thinking.

Most thought is done at the subconscious level and most people do not monitor the results of that thought. The brain will just use whatever premises happen to be accepted by the thinker and automatically use logical mental processes to produce conscious thoughts. The process of checking premises is what is missing in most people but if the thinking is not too far from rational, then humans can thrive due to, possibly, riding the shirt sleeves of those who are better at thinking. They may not be successful in happiness but will continue their lives. It all depends on what is considered successful. Humans have been most successful in reproduction which takes little rules of thought.

I agree with you about science, because it is the study of the world external to ourselves. No two different answers can both be correct.
In philosophy we are dealing with morals and values which are all internal to our minds. The marxists and keynsians believe they are correct just as strongly as we do.
In my opinion, the polarizing stance that others have to agree 100% or else they are the enemy does not serve any purpose except isolation.

I have friends who are not Objectivists and I know that there will be places where out friendship is limited and know that most people given the opportunity will not rob an individual and almost all who are given the opportunity will loot through the process known as 'law'.

Well put

You misread my thoughts on this issue. I was merely stating an "unfortunate" paradox. Purity for purity's sake is all well and good if you do not care about attaining your goals and Truths, whatever they may be.

Unfortunately, we do not live in that "perfect" world whereas we can be purists and still attain the Truths that we believe are immutable. Compromise and negotiations on some issues may be the only viable way of attaining our Truths and goals.

Like being undressed