What's a Simple Idea?

8/8/2019 What's a Simple Idea?

1/5

Copyright2010byRobertL.Nuckolls,III.Thisdocumentmaybereproducedinanyformorvenuewhenauthorshipisproperlycitedandtheworkisnotexploitedforthepurposeofsecuringaprofitorobscuringcontext.

1

The Simple-Ideas Occasional

A publication dedicated to the study and celebration

of common sense and repeatable experiments

Robert L. Nuckolls, III

Medicine Lodge, Kansas

Number 1, Rev A, December 19, 2010

Whats a Simple-Idea? A simple-idea should have a simple definition.Referring to Websters dictionary for simple andidea I will suggest:A standard of perfection readilyunderstood by any competent observer.

Standard of perfection sounds like (and is often used)to speak about nebulous and complex subjects orsystems. In the context of this and subsequent essays,our standard for perfection is a discovery of the leastcomplex components of any invention either physicalor intellectual.

Simple ideas require little explanation. Anycompetentobserver will readily grasp and then be able to usesimple ideas as components for larger concepts andsystems.

Simple ideas can be concepts. For example: CharlesKettering once stated, Knowing is not understanding.There is a great difference between knowing andunderstanding: you can know a lot about something andnot really understand it.

Simple idea? Sure! Students everywhere are oftengraded on their ability tomemorize a host of facts andsuccessfully regurgitate themon an exam; but 100% on theexam reveals no discoveryof how those facts might fitinto or enhance the studentslife experiences.

Consider a bolt and matchingnut. A competent observerwho has never seen these

objects before will readily discover how the parts fittogether In perhaps a few minutes. Having achievedthat understanding they might begin to ponder how thenut and bolt can be used as components of a larger

system.

Another simple idea expands on a notion ofoptimalproportion. For example: Too little fertilizer and theplants languish; to much fertilizer and the plants will bepoisoned and destroyed.

Hundreds of years ago, Willam of Ockham wiselyobserved, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeternecessitatem. The words translate to, entities shouldnot be multiplied beyond necessity. In modernvernacular, Dont make anything more complicatedthan it needs to be for the idea to be completely

functional. This simple idea has significancethroughout the spectrum of competent observers.Weve all heard of the KISS principal . . . Keep ItSimple Stupid. The idea has been a feature in manystudies in philosophy and has been give the title ofOckhams Razor.

Excellent examples of this idea are found in the art andscience of cooking. A chef studies how combinationsof ingredients go together to craft pleasing tastes,appearances and textures. A skilled chef mustunderstand the science of how ingredients interact witheach other to achieve the successful recipe. He or shealso strives to discover the minimum numbers and

optimal proportions of ingredients that produce themost pleasing result. Finally, theprocesses by whichthe ingredients are combined require experimentationand careful observation and tracking of outcomes. Thefully developedrecipe for success is a process that can


2/5


2

be repeated over and over again with a high probabilityof achieving the same outcome every time.

Ockams Razor codifies what allcompetent observersknow about optimization. For example: A really goodrecipe that calls for two or three spices or flavors would

not benefit from adding a dozen more spices.

Arecipe for success is often limited by the best-we-know-how-to-do for any given period of time. Forexample: Engines that power modern vehicles havesignificant gains in power and efficiency over enginespopular in the 1950's. Yet theyre crafted from a fewerparts, offer greater reliability and wear out more slowlythan their half-century old ancestors. Every year or so,some chef in the arts and science of engines discoversa previously untried process. Perhaps it uses newlydiscovered ingredients. Maybe its just a more refinedcombination of the past ingredients. In any case, its anadvancement on thebest-we-know-how-to-do.

I suggest that the entire universe, both in terms of thephysics and human relationships operate on simple-ideas. It has been said, there is nothing new under thesun and I agree. Everysimple-idea discovered to dateand yet be discovered has existed long before mankindcame along. It will still exist when and if mankindbecomes extinct.

A teachers success depends on the ability to assiststudents in their own first discovery of simple ideas. Ateacher then guides student in understanding theirassemblage into successful systems beneficial in the

past, present and new opportunities for the future.

History and archaeology may yield evidence ofsimple-ideas that were placed into useful practice centuriesago.

Consider the fabrication of ancient pyramids . . . stonesweighing many tonsstacked to great heightswith fits that will notadmit the thickness of aplaying card.

H o w a b o u t t h eobservations and thoughtprocesses behind theMayan calendar?

Check out the AntikytheranMechanism on the Internet.Modern mortals ponderr e m n a n t s o f t h e s eachievements with awe and

wonder. Some have suggestedthat these things could nothave come into being withoutthe assistance of extra-

terrestrial or omnipotent beings: The puny intellects ofancient history were notcapable of understandingthe simple-ideas andprocesses behind thec r e a t i o n o f s u c hmarvels. Some humansare fond of supernaturalattribution to things theydont understand whilesimultaneously doingtheir level best to obscureor deny the simple-ideasthat lead to understanding.

I suggest that thecompetent observer will come to analternate conclusion. The people involved in the designand fabrication of these ancient wonders were skilledcraftsmen. It was all in a days work. They hadunderstanding of the simple-ideas and workingknowledge for creation of the tools and processes bywhich those ideas were molded into recipes for

success. Perhaps not easy, but for them it was certainly

simple.

Countless simple-ideas and the technologies havebecome hidden from us due to an innate perversity ofthe human species. Inventors killed, their writingsdestroyed or stolen, libraries sacked or destroyed,whole cultures wiped out by natural calamity.Fortunately for us,simple-ideas cannot be created ordestroyed. What ever the ancients knew, its still outthere waiting to be re-discovered.

The Simple-Ideas Occasional is not an attempt topersuade anyone of anything. Simple-ideas are

fundamental truths that any competent observer willunderstand - they do not require persuasion. Simple-ideas cannot be property. The neatest thing about

simple-ideas is that they are rudimentary, fundamental,inarguable, and easily understood by any competent


3/5


3

observer. While huge collections ofsimple-ideas maybe assembled into wonderful inventions, everyinvention no matter how complex or mystifying may bedisassembled into its componentsimple-ideas and anyone idea is easily recognized and understood by

competent observer who chooses to do so.

Simple ideas are not about individuals but they candefine and guide individual behaviors. Allsimple-ideashave always existed - long before they were discoveredand added to the humans bag of tricks. They will existlong after human are gone. As we move forward in thediscovery, discussion and exchange ofsimple-ideas, letus be mindful that many individuals among us perceivebenefit in obscuring or even denying their existence.They may offer up their own perverted concepts of a

simple-idea. Such ideas do not stand up under theillumination of common sense, examination of fact, orthe guidance of that wise philosopher, William ofOckham.

These individuals are never teachers who take pleasurein the sharing of discovery and understanding. They areinstead propagandists using powers of persuasion anddespotic progressives using force of office and law toconvince listeners that some things are just too complexfor ordinary folks to understand or control. Theseindividuals anoint themselves as intellectually andsocially superior elitists. Transformation to their exaltedstate produces a miracle. Theyre suddenly endowedwith duty and power to wield control over knowledgeand skills they do not possess, property they do notown, and lives of people who were born into liberty.

This is called descent into tyranny.

Over the course of publishing planned monographs forThe Simple-Ideas Occasional, I will endeavor to makea case for an earlier assertion that the whole universeruns onsimple-ideas. I will illustrate and demonstratethat the understanding and value of anysimple-idea iswell within the grasp of anycompetent observer whoexercises common sense. Finally, I will illustrate anddemonstrate tools of analysis and understanding that

honorable individuals may use to expose statists, socialengineers, mystics and charlatans who use their self-serving, self-elevated status to justify dishonorable

behavior against other individuals.

Referring back to the opening paragraphs of this essay,may I suggest that the epitome of perfection is the

simple-idea? The simple-idea is worthy of the name

only when stripped of all superfluous complexity. Asimple-idea is the fundamental building block fromwhich more complex systems may be crafted. A simpleidea is easily understood and stands on its own merits.It matters not whether you endeavor to be a great chef,golfer, musician, engineer, scientist, base-ball player,

doctor, or teacher. Your success will hinge on adiscovery, understanding and assemblage of thesimple-ideas (some may say fundamentals) of yourchosen craft.

The Enemies of Simple Ideas

There are individuals with whom we share this planetwho are demonstrated if not avowed enemies of certainsimple ideas. How can this be? Simple-ideas are notinherently dangerous. They are not created nor can theybe destroyed. They cannot be forever hidden because

simple-ideas are pervasive. They exist everywherewaiting to be discovered, used, and perhaps forgotten .. . only to be discovered again in other persons, placesand times. Who in their right mind would take up thesword against something that cannot be destroyed?

Easy, there are individuals of at least ignorant if notdishonorable intent for whomsimple-ideasare a threat.These individuals seek to hold power over others. Theyextort value from the production of others withouthaving tohonorably exert themselves intellectually orphysically. I dont know if these individuals understandthat asimple-idea cannot be destroyed . . . or whetherthey simply strike out at some idea which places theirpositions of power at risk. But strike out they do and

some times in bizarre ways..

For example:

Consider this list of simple-ideas that speak therelationships between individuals in a civilized society:

You cannot bring about prosperity bydiscouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakeningthe strong.

You cannot enrich the poor by impoverishingthe rich.

You cannot establish economic security onborrowed money.


4/5


4

You cannot help the wage earner by pullingdown the wage payor .

You cannot build character and courage bytaking away man's initiative and

independence.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man byinciting class hatred.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spendingmore than you earn.

You cannot help men permanently by doingfor them what they could and should do forthemselves.

Thecompetent observer ofsimple-ideas will considerthese thoughts and readily confirm their validity. Lookmagazine attributed this list to Abraham Lincoln in anpiece printed over 50 years ago. Time magazinefollowed up soon thereafter:

http://tinyurl.com/26vgbra

The author in Time cites the paper trail that disprovesthe basic premises of the Look article attributing thesewords to Abraham Lincoln.

Suppose the author of Look magazine had attributedthese ideas to a beggar he met on the street? Better yet.Suppose Look was reporting on the claim of some

archaeologist that the list had been deciphered fromancient rune stones unearthed in Minnesota? Howmight the two articles have been different? How mightthis have affected the responses from elitists of thetime?

Its easy to imagine self-exalted individualsdiscounting the list in its entirety because it was theproduct of some individuals drunken delirium. Orpraising the wisdom of ancient visitors to the NorthAmerican Continent. Words uttered or written byindividuals with without certifiable credential orsufficiently elevated celebrity are suspect if not

discountable out of hand by the elitists.

We can never know now but perhaps the author of theLook article understood this and wished too hard fornoteworthy attribution of these ideas. It just wouldnt

do to publish the list with no attribution. Or perhaps asimple admission that they were found on a piece ofpaper lying on the sidewalk. Or perhaps craftedpersonally based on examination of their own lifeexperiences. After all, he was just a reporter andperhaps not expected to display the talents of a

competent observer.

This expenditure of ink, paper, printing and cost ofdistribution is but one of millions of examples of tis so,taint so arguments over insignificance while the realvalue goes unrecognized or obscured. The entirecontext of the Time article is aimed at discrediting Lookmagazines attribution and ignores the value of theideas.

You cannot make asimple-ideago away or diminish itssignificance by bad-mouthing discoverers or incorrectlyattributing the discovery to another individual. Bad-mouthing the messenger is the lazy, cowardly way tofurther adishonorable goal of obscuringsimple-ideas.But then, cowardice is a common trait amongst

dishonorable individuals. They are most comfortablenever having to consider honorable behaviorssupported bysimple-ideas in open forum. To have an

honest debate on relevant matters in front ofeverybody puts them at great risk for exposing theirtrue nature.

The most egregious behavior of the Time author was totitle the piece Dishonest Abe. Assuming there waswillful mis-attribution of the list to Abe Lincoln, it hadnothing to do with the veracity of the president. While

justifiably proud of counting coup on the competingmagazine, the Time author was notably silent on thevalue of ideas offered in the list while demonstratinghis own skill at generating clouds of floobydust.

Whether discovered and illuminated by Abe Lincoln,ancient Vikings or plain Joe Citizen, that list ofsimple-ideas is pretty damned good! Too bad they werehidden from many by a storm of attribution floobydust.The student ofsimple-ideas soon comes to understandthat it doesnt matter who discovers asimple-idea orhow it is brought to light and shared. Yes, correctattribution is interesting but its not about people, its

all about ideas.

Modern examples of reverence for credential orcelebrity abound. The words of a popular singer ormovie star carries more weight with some individuals


5/5


5

than the words of a good teacher. The movie starswhole career hinges on the institutionalized lie.

They make $millions$ for an ability to convince moviegoers that they are someone who does not and probablycould never exist. If convincing in their roles as

individuals who never were, then it follows that theyare equally convincing in their promotion of bad ideas.It is easily demonstrated that Hollywood andWashington have a great deal in common when itcomes to institutionalized lying with profound benefitsto the liar.

Bad ideas of presidents have been embraced to thepoint of threatening the security and economy of anentire planet. Some presidents have enjoyed elevationto virtual sainthood by awards of a Nobel Prize. If aSwedish committee charged with giving away bucketsfull of somebody elses money thinks a particular recipeis worthy of great reward, then it automatically followsthat the recipe is based on rock solid ideas . . . . yeah,right.

As we take this journey of discovery together, let us bemindful of attempts by fellow citizens to throw up lotsof dust around asimple-ideaby calling for investigationof the speakers and writers. Theyll attempt to discredit

simple-ideas by throwing mud at anyone who offersthem up. Theyll attempt to dismiss ideas because theywere not the product of individuals with sufficientcredential or celebrity. They will also throw up cloudsof dust disguised as fact checking to hide their owninability or unwillingness to discuss a simple-idea in

terms of its face value. It matters not that this reluctanceis driven by protection of deeply held beliefs, ordinary

disinterest, ulterior motives or simple ignorance. Thevalue of asimple-idea as an ingredient in arecipe for

success is lost every time it is successfully obscured orignored.

Success in this endeavor depends on a willingness and

ability to consider ideas on their own merit and tocultivate personal skills ascompetent observers . Onlythen will our culture be capable of peering through thefog of institutionalized dishonesty that is threatening todestroy the phenomenalrecipe for success that broughtthis representative republic into existence. Ourrecipe

for success was codified over 200 years ago in adocument that was but 6 pages long.

http://tinyurl.com/ybxpcd6

Our founding fathers agreed in great measure withWilliam of Ockham and demonstrated a solidunderstanding of the power ofsimple-ideas.

As a critical component of good education, simple-ideas have been discarded or simply lost in theoperation of government schools. If our society is toregain the greatness it once held on the world scene, itis up to a new class of teachers and students todiscover, understand, and learn how to assemble

simple-ideas intorecipes for success that benefit us all.

The design goal for these essays is to cultivate anappreciation for how simple-ideas becameindestructible fibers in the fabric of a culture thatthrives in a free-market exchange of value and a state of

communal liberty secure in their persons and propertyby the force ofhonorable law.

Documents

What's a Simple Idea?