Questioning is actually good, but it can definitely be an intimidating process, and yet on the other hand if neither having the possession so much of embarrassment concerning ego or anything else for that matter, this could serve potentially better although wondering with respect to the degree of questioning and any particular ignorance or arrogance shown otherwise. Here I think with something of uneasy trepidation, its not easy questioning at times and being wrong on a given answer but being altogether right on the same hand for daring to question?! At least, I could recall probably most recently squaring my thoughts in frustration on something like the examination of the subject matter of mechanics, where given radial acceleration of a rotating body, gravitational force were in the direction of the radial arm (producing zero torque), and of course given that truly a pivoting arm with any angular acceleration directed by way of centripetal acceleration while outward on the pivoting body should actually by newton's laws result in a static equation (that is, the pivoting point weren't translating), and so I think that truly the answer in another way to the question of the y component acceleration of the pivoting arm at its given endpoint in a given vertical configuration should have a net resultant acceleration of zero on the y component direction, but here for the sake of points, I answer the question differently than the way that I think in terms of net forces, although maybe it seems I could overlook this point with respect to the questions wording asking for 'y component acceleration at a given point, but not resultant y component force'.
On the one hand in culture we are given any number of cultural wisdom s like its better to remain silence than having demonstrated, in so many words, one's ignorance, yet, if we remained silent without asking the question which may or may not protest one's ignorance, how should we ever learn as efficiently or adequately?! Here the trepidation that passes is one gained from something of an inset wisdom on the matter of going more easily to the role of believing with conviction the right of one's truth, and then moments later only having found out all too easily, that any particular crucial detail were overlooked in the process of one's reasoning, or that one simply hadn't observed adequately all manner of assumptions. The other common sort of logic that at times could bare fallacy were that any unruly nature of work for an assigned problem were necessarily a problem with respect to the degree of the assignment or indicators with respect to the nature of one's solution work. I don't know how many times, I've found myself backtracking and rechecking work thinking this, yet it seems a counter example of this only occurs later. Then one realizes being human like others.
Thinking about the nature of questioning in another way, however, I think only as when any inclination of age existed prior as in aging, are we more likely to concede on the point of neither asking questions as much as we had when we were younger?! Likely as we found that through rote experience of statistics that often times our overlooking details that had been parsed over by many, should be a testament to the degree of our time expedient ways of reading through information, I am not so attentive in exacting ways to details, but only through pouring over text, parsing and re reading information are I more likely to catch errors in my thinking or provided assumptions. The larger the readership, in theory, should yield the greater likelihood that errors are caught and corrected in time, which is to say why in science, mathematics, or in literature in general, peer review or readers in general matter to the process of language, communication, and logic, but admittedly, one should wonder how persistently do errors pass unchecked even over centuries on a given subject matter, and all because of the investment and weight of presiding authority? Top scientists and mathematicians no doubt blunder no doubt in some way likely in their lifetime, and eventually it seems inadequacies or blunders in logic succumb to the test of time. If it were only merely having asked a group of Pythagoreans what exactly were the square root of 2, having asserted at least at such a time that it were neither rational, before facing likely a death sentence, although I am not sure if this were more historically for the sake of legend than truth, or maybe it seems one could argue to some degree with these sorts of rigid thinkers up to a point, but if you were defacing their temples with graffiti in the form of 'square root of 2 is irrational', there could be some successive stage of punishment?! I am not sure here. Some thinkers could have chosen preferably the way of hemlock before conceding in principle to denial on certain matters at least in so far as prejudices, or others it seems may have instead submitted in some way shape or form, and then with some manner of blessing proceeded in subversive ways.
Returning to the subject matter of peer review, as I have seen complained about, the degree of expense in possessing privately published academic journals are likely beyond the reach of any number of households, peer review itself might not be as democratic as we like to believe, if it weren't supposedly for the PLOS movement, and then as complained, because of the degree of specialization that should be given to any particular erudite subject matter where doctorate grade education on a particular subject were necessary merely in deciphering the code of logic for a given discipline, which might exclude any potential base of individuals. It seems that for some given subject matter, the field could be excluded to review by handfuls of individuals here on the matter of education and expertise, replicating experiments, validating works, or as I've read complained about, prodigious works were more likely to go unchecked over time. The roles of any particular thinkers, scientists in verifying works should seem a less than desirable, less than noble goal compared to those who aim their careers at study, publication of original works, or contributing some theory for that matter?!
Concerning the matter of economy take, for instance, a former leader of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, arguing about the governing mathematical logical systems governing the body mechanics of a specific type of financial derivative investments. Here the argument having gone along the lines, 'you'd need a doctorate to understand the math, and even then you'd still have much difficulty.' Well technically he's probably right in some way, but its is also that a given social system perpetuates authority on the basis of a form of mysticism, the power of potentially something so complex that it couldn't be understood, or as in the age, where most would likely be content to let the magic of technology operate in their daily lives without so much degree of question or understanding where or why things should be as they are, or as any degree of logic proceeds, why exactly should people be wrong to think that super colliders having replicated the conditions of our early universe and simultaneously having produced very very small black holes (or an equivalent type of energy condition), not believe that a given situation could spiral out of hand, not unlike those having talked about runaway chain reaction events like china syndrome?! Here it seems more likely that science popularization has with cultural expediency scoffed at the idea of explanation (as I've seen at times even in layman s language), but as it turns out something could be amiss when scientists, mathematicians, engineers, or economists are remiss to understand something so readily resorted upon employed inventions, discoveries, or instrument/tool which were the wonders of scientific and technological production in comprehensive ways, or merely engage in more secretive ways to employ these technologies. Here if you were thinking the miraculous nature of one's modern life were enough testament otherwise, it seems we have considered the cultural thinking of a technological religion or at least faith. When we see so many positive benefits provided to us by the engineers, thinkers, mathematicians, scientists and so forth that produced them, maybe are less likely to question anything being wrong, even if everything around us seems to work so well?! Then we find in some ways that the degree of con artistry given might have had some reducible features, like the man that walks up to the cash register and ask for change, and employs a classic age old short change trick, or at least playing accounting games, cooking books is nothing new really, even if device of a new financial/mathematical religion is held over any one's head for mystifying purposes.
If there are dumb questions it seems maybe we are afraid to ask the smart ones?
