While Rationalism
accepts only the certainty of principles, maxims, and rules, Oakeshott's conservatism needs no foundational principles to anchor it.
Not exact matches
For the sake of argument, if the article (which I didn't read) used
only words that left no room for doubt (in a sense saying «We know with 100 %
certainty that...), would you
accept the conclusions?
where an ideology or belief claims «
certainty» but
only through
accepting that belief can one know «true» knowledge.
We call this process experimental, which basically means that we don't know the answer with
certainty at the beginning (nor can we simply
accept an answer on authority without testing it), but
only when the experiment is over.
I consider «cult logic» to be where a certain ideology or belief claims
certainty and
only through
accepting that belief can one know «true» knowledge.
So inevitable are these conclusions, in fact, that I just gave up and
accepted the ending, which sidesteps a first - glance case of double jeopardy with such vague dialogue, recited in such a bland tone of sotto voce, that I
only got the basic gist of how we got from Point A to Point B. With Point B such a shrug - worthy
certainty, I wasn't nearly confused enough to care besides.
The
only time it makes sense to be loose in
accepting a low current earnings yield is when, with a high degree of
certainty, you expect a company to have a high future earnings per share rate going forward.
Sometimes HD Decisions has enough information to give
certainty that you'll be
accepted for a credit card or loan from a credit perspective (still subject to fraud checks and whatnot), but currently that's
only provided from your main bank and a few smaller niche lenders.
With Rebates, Inducements and Buying Leads, all being
accepted by the CRA and the Competition Bureau's demands for a more varied business models, this expense really needs to be moved into every Buyer Reps toolbox as a
certainty, which
only a challenge will provide.