Kjrsos Exclusive Discovery Program

In discussion, we explore concept and ideas with an open mind and an open heart, seeing what new things we can learn together, and add to the world body of knowledge on horses and our work with them. Developing future material for those who travel here with us and for those who can maybe be shown how to look at things with a new perspective. This is a Level 3 Program where we continue to learn as we learn how to question everything. A Kjrsos Exclusive Program where we learn to challenge each other to progress beyond our own limitations for the benefit of everyone including our horses.  Where we explore the questions that others still have yet to find.

Mammals who travel on four legs often have a tail, sometimes small like rhino or important like a cheetah.

Those that travel on two are more likely not to have a tail, although there are those that might like monkeys that swing through the trees. 

Birds have tails alight with feathers that held steer.  For a mammal that isn't in flight why a tail, what purpose, and what can we tell by how it acts.  What secrets, what knowledge can we gain by observing the tail of the horse.

Breaking down things to the smallest components that we know for absolutely sure are true and then build up from there.

This is something we need to apply to every discovery conversation.  Every time we question something once again..

1. Establish what are your first principles.

2. Review your first principles

3. See if your first principles can be further be taken to even smaller components.

4. rebuild from your first principles and check your logic along the way.

  • There is one feature I notice that is generally missing . … It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.

    • "Cargo Cult Science", adapted from a 1974 Caltech commencement address; also published in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, p. 341


Course Studies

A weekly question that we ask the riders to contribute to the discussion.  Only available for the week, but might be returned to again in the future.  Published every... Thursday?