Why do people ...

can someone proof read this for me? feel free to yell at me and give me criticism as I do know that I probably need it.


Why do people believe claims which do not have a scientific basis?

    Sadly, the majority of us are simple minded beings that enjoy life to be simple and easy to understand. Before humans had science they had religion, which they put their faith in to gain a sense of understanding. Leaders of the ancient world found an easy way to explain to their people why and how things happened. “God made it so.” “To believe otherwise is heresy.” What humans needed before is the same as what the need now and what they’ll need in the future, the simple ape folk want a simple explanation. That is one possible reason for why people may think we never landed on the moon. the other; Because it is also human nature to question. Question what seems ridiculous. If my astronomy professor lectured to the class that today the sky will turn neon purple and the oceans bright yellow, I would question. I would seek answers as to why this would happen and would need to see for myself.

Selfishness

Selfishness??

ShellFISHness?

>>1
and would you have been answered? No. Why is never answered, may be "how" but not "why". Science can  bring you only so far and the unexplainable beyond is god for those who lack superior thinking abilities. Scientists are included, i see science no different than religion today, both have a principle and follow that unquestioningly. Our realities stand on assumptions there is no room for such arrogance and absolute confidence in your discoveries. Science has the basic assumptions of absolute causality and mathematical reasoning, which are no way certain but rather instinctively right because we have experienced them so, so far. We chose to define the events like that. I propose a third method: integrate philosophy with practical science. Those who say philosophy is unpractical are just idiots who gave up too early in the thinking process, because you sure can devise experiments about how human mind, existence, consciousness or possible higher actions work.
But the real reason why science isn't trusted would be because the people with power antagonize religion and science constantly. They need to keep the masses bus with useless struggles so it becomes easier to control. There is always a contradiction. Religious people refuting evolution theory? Don't make me laugh, you are contradicting with your own principle. Principle of religion is to accept unquestioningly and obey and you try to question a theory with scientific methods? No. Only science people have the right to do so and they are doing it, evolution theory is not universally accepted even among scientists and that is how it should be. No theory should be viewed as true sine there is no true if you don't define it that way.

>>2

Sell fish.

Post it on kiddiediddlertalk.  if it gets deleted, there was a typo

>Why do people believe claims which do not have a scientific basis?

because they might be true.

>>8
sorry, i diddn't finish, don't know why the rest diddn't come out.

1.) because they are too preoccupied, lazy, or comfortable to reason with themselves otherwise.

2.) because they are genuinely mistaken as to how logic and reason works.

3.) Because they are paranoid that someone's trying to make a fool of them.

4.) Because science may not have the means to answer the relevant question.

5.) because they might be true. And the fear of the potential truth behind certain things outwheighs their unreasonableness. Like, hell for example. Many people find there is not logical reason to believe a hell probably exists, but the punishment that comes from being wrong far outwheighs its unreasonableness, so they believe it just to be on the safe side.

6.) Some combination of the above.

>>1
EXIST?

I'll choose to open door number >>5

>>5
What you lack are superior thinking abilities. You lack the ability to appreciate WHAT IS and are therefore ungrateful for it. It is just like a false scientist to claim that knowledge is better than ignorance or ignorance is worse than knowledge when both are just two states of being which ALL things must move into and out of each and every moment of their lives. You are no different from those that would criticize or rather heckle that which you can't begin to understand because you are weighing it against that which you believe you know and that is why you will always lose.
It was you who stated that, "God lies in what isn't understood." Yes, I agree. That which cannot be explained is imagined, postulated, speculated, assumed, even presumed to, "fill the gaps" in knowledge; or rather WHAT IS known. You lack the ability to see things clearly evidenced by your bias towards those people who appear in your eyes as ignorant and less-fortunate to be something of demons. This entire premise is a facade. An delicately orchestrated illusion to satiate the unknowns and uncertainties of your own mind...and yes, you had lost even before you had begun because you ARE the one who is ignorant of this and now all of us are aware of your ignorance. What you do from here is up to you.

>>1
As for you, I understand your frustrations and your questions and presumptions are valid and considerable ones.
However, before you jump to conclusions and judge those that use alternative means to accomplish their own ends you may want to give consideration where it is necessary. Do you know all that there is to know? If you do than you are as God. If you do not than you are human. If you do not yet claim you do than you are the other One. If you see all things through the bias of your own self-serving beliefs than you cannot possibly consider alternatives that exist outside of your experienced perceptions. You will perceive all unknowns as fallacy rather than perceive them as possibilities and potentialities and opportunities as some of us humans are able. We, in part, understand this frustration and are inclined to agree that not knowing is frustrating; but what you choose to ignore is that which is right in front of your very eyes. That you ARE frustrated, that you ARE uncertain, that you ARE unclear as to HOW to proceed from here with what you currently know. Knowledge is overrated. Learning is one of the greatest things you will ever learn in your life, but you conceded to those that taunted you, "Have you ever played the 'knowing game'? NO? AHAHAHAHA!!!" Yes, the taunted and teased and told you that you were dumb for not having known or experienced some things, and you bought it hook, line, and sinker and wonder why you always get served on a chopping block. Life is not about what is missing, life is about what IS here and now in this very moment. That you are reading this is truth, that you are considering what is stated here is truth, that you are having an emotional reaction to these words is truth. Let the others deny all they want; they damage only themselves with their own illusions. Let them play their games, their all children anyway; we ARE all children on this Earth anyway. So what is getting in our way? False pride. Self-serving acts of desperation without consideration. Our very own egos are tearing us as a people apart because it cannot possibly understand why it has to be aware that it cannot know everything all the time, every time. It wants to know why it isn't God when it has served us primitive humans for so very long and now we appear to it as ungrateful. This is why we appear to each other as callous, inconsiderate, and selfishly narcissistic. We are confronted with ITs arguments every moment and push all away that attempt to distract us from it. All IT really wants is your attention. Your attention so you are distracted from what truly IS REAL; this moment, right here on this thread, reading this final line of dialog. And what would IT have to say about this? "Ah, you almost had me. Nice try. Better luck next time." And I would reply, "you silly little man, I'm already inside the walls."

>>1

Please don't tell me English is your first language.

>>12
God lies in what isn't understood
I did not suggest that, that is what people choose believe. Also i cannot understand a single thing from your post, use less technical terms to look smarter next time.

Why do people believe claims which do not have a scientific basis?  Because only a fool believes that that which is observable is the sum of all everything.  There's an important difference between disbelieving what one sees, and believing what one does not.

Call this religion if you want.  But since science is only practical in the realm of the observable, it cannot be all-inclusive.  The "observable" has been known to change over time based on various discoveries, but there's nothing that suggests that what we can observe now is in any way complete.  The best science can do is guess at what can't be detected, and try to figure out how to detect it.

We must rely on the axiom that what we see is the truth within a margin of error.  Any observation that is later shown to be false was either taken using faulty mechanisms of observation or was interpreted using faulty mechanisms of logic.  Without these axioms, nothing may be determined, and, as such, no course of action may be set without literally guessing as to the outcome.  It is obvious that, given a set of circumstances, we can determine within a certain margin of error the outcome were we to expose said circumstances to an action. For instance, were we given a ball, we would know that, were we to kick it, we would cause it to be propelled forward.  It is only due to the lack of absolutely precise observation, interpretation, and execution thereof that we see said margin of error.  With this being said, science, when performed correctly, will take the data, analyze the margin of error thereof due to its imperfect method of acquisition, and use the logic taken from previous observations, taking into account once again the margin of error of said logic.  This leaves science with a perfect method with which to interpret evidence; the margin of error of its conclusions will vary directly with the margin of error of its observations, and this is acknowledged.  As such, science, when performed correctly, will never be wrong in its claims, as it claims nothing more than it found.

I hope that answers those of you who doubted science's validity.  Now, for the original question.

What you said is, in essence, correct.  Albeit incredibly condescending, lacking in evidence, and biased, your conclusions are correct.  People despise decision.  Frankly, this is something I don't know how to prove.  It seems almost obvious, with words such as "carefree" having such a positive connotation, and people seeing most decisions as innately stressful, but I'm at a loss as to how to prove this using any semblance of logic.  You can sort of prove that what isn't proven isn't worth consideration; Russel's teapot did this fairly effectively. The quote taken from his Wikipedia page sums it up nicely: 
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

My best advice for your paragraph from a purely literary standpoint though, would be to: avoid base insults such as "simple ape folk"; fix your incomplete sentences (you'll have to consult a grammar textbook for this); and fix your logic (just because you would do something doesn't mean it's correct).

I hope I've been of help to you, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

There is a few reasons, fear of uncertain outcomes and option attachment make decision-making seemingly overwhelming and daunting. The conflict forms from what is known and what is not. The remainder is imaginary and appears as doubt in the mind. This is the logical approach to something unknown by some people. If the feeling of stress is not something a person would normally pursue, the option is decided against.
Some great books that talk about these choice stresses can be found in Covert Persuasion. This book is a great asset in helping people overcome doubts within choice-making and option-attachment.

Option-attachment; in simple terms is when someone has their eyes on a certain item or service (1), but if said service or product (1) is chosen one looses out on the other option (2) and therefore decides against the current item (1) to reconsider this other item (2) later and no decision is made at this time.

Covert Persuasion is a book written and published by two salesmen with years of experience in the field of making sales and overcoming hurdles that were presented with each customer. It's helped me overcome my own indecisiveness and allowed me to conquer my own self-induced doubts. I'm sure you'll find it helpful when you employ some of their techniques.
As for Russell's Teapot, I agree, if one thing were asserted to be true without any premise or evidence without prior cultural indoctrination of said assertion being true one would be left to the psychiatric doctors for study.

The problems that some people are finding have a lot to do with the conflicts of knowing and not knowing. When there is a gap in memory one tends to fill this void with something imaginary, creating an intense motivation in curiosity to see if it is true through experiencing it in the external perceivable world. However, some people do the prior and skip the latter resulting in self-delusion.
The second has to do with painful memories. When a memory is painful, one may confound themselves by recalling a memory, stating a different method to what had happened, resulting in a disconnect from the emotional pain associated with the memory. However, this is known as self-deception.
The antithesis of self-deception is optimism. It appears ridiculous, but listen to just the following;
Instead of re-writing a memory, what did you learn from your experience? Almost always there is a tendency to lean towards something painful. However, the optimism of any experience is something learned, something gained, something ventured, and a new awareness.
An example might be the following, "I fell off my bike when I hit a pothole as I was riding down the road and it hurt."
Okay, what may appear to be something obvious is going to appear minuscule and seemingly unimportant. It is the small things that matter most, we are made of small things afterall, discounting them is discounting us as a whole.
So, the good thing about falling off a bike after hitting a pothole on the road is knowing that you got hurt from it. So riding into potholes causes pain. So, if this is true, what precautions may be taken to avoid pain next time?
1) Protective gear
2) Avoid potholes
3) Pick alternative riding areas void of potholes
Doing this will minimalize injury and increase opportunities to ride a bike over multiple terrains securely.

What this technique of optimism does is allows you to maintain the integrity of your memories and experience and the association to the pain and learning incentives of said experiences. Basically, you maintain your integrity, honesty, and memory recall. You become someone who understands the importance of your own awareness.
You may not understand what I am saying now, but perhaps you may understand later as you learn.
Knowing isn't even half the battle, as in GI Joe, knowing is an illusion, learning is what is important. Learn every moment, overwrite or include information about what you learn in your memories, but never dilute them with delusions without addressing the delusions actively through research. Yeah...that thing they forgot to tell you that is so important in life...*some assembly required*
When someone states that they know something, realize that what is stated may or may not be true at this moment; but for now at least that this person stated something shows something about this person. If this person ends up being RIGHT, than it shows that even you have the ability to do research to find out that they were in fact right.
Life isn't about them being right, it's about discovering WHAT IS RIGHT. If you allow their message to go un-addressed, you may as well dismiss the entire conversation except the fact that they stated it for later memory recall in later conversations. Some conversations are to see if a person learns, accepts, or denies what is right or true when it comes to relationships.

This is a lot of information to swallow. So don't. One of the basics in The Art of Deception is, "If something can't be proved or researched at the moment, simply choose not to believe it until such a time that the evidence may be collected and weighed."
It doesn't mean ignore. It means, take down the information, and use what you know right now to find out what you will know later.
The bible even talks about this;
2 Corinthians 13:12
"...Now I know in part; then I will know fully..."
What you know is like a bookmark oh-so-far along in a book to which you don't know how far or what the ending is like.
We aren't supposed to know all now, only then. That is what our curiosities motivate us to find, our own truths. So what if others don't believe you. At least you spoke your mind and told them something about you and what you are interested in. That is what IS important. If you find out later on that the information was false, you can retract what you said and make a new statement.
Afterall, to err is human. To accept this axiom is the best part of being human.
"I know that I am weighed only by how well I can learn; though I may be deceived into believing that I am weighed by what I know."

This seems a good time to add a favorite quote of mine which I had previously omitted due to lack of complete relevance, taken from Dune: "Knowledge is the most effective barrier against learning."

I have found this true; you will rarely learn the totality of an idea, it is much more likely you have only bee exposed to either a single perspective or a single aspect of said idea. You must always consider the possibility there is more to know about it.  After all, we aren't all perfect thinkers, as >>18 said.

I do agree with the first paragraph of your text, having reached essentially the same conclusions. Do you know, however, how one might go about proving this? It seems that any explanation would suffer either from either over-speculative logic or the is-ought problem.

It's very simple to prove any idea. Involve it in everything you do and witness the effect it has on everything you do.
This could be from doing what you already know how to do, so do it differently in such a way as you have yet to do before, a way you feel uncertain about. Whether a process works or not before you do it is irrelevant, however, a neurotic ego will assume that it is. From the point of the neurotic ego all choice is a detriment and should be avoided at all cost. It is so because fear is anticipated in all things unknown and doubt is certain within uncertainty according to the neurotic ego.
It is because a person doesn't know up front that they should experience to learn later on. With each occurrence of said experiment involving an idea, repetition is the key to success.

Whether or not a process involving an idea was done right or wrong is irrelevant as well. The only thing that matters is, "What happened when the idea was involved? How did said idea effect process? etc."
If you want to see the DIFFERENCE between the same process and different ideas, perform a process without the idea and then do it again WITH the idea. The difference is the effect of the idea as opposed to the absence of the idea.
One simple thing to remember is that choice is binary, but options are variable. All ideas are variable and relative to any individual. The only reason a person can not accomplish a task is because his fear, doubt, and uncertainty is more persistent than his Free-Will, "To do what he doesn't feel like doing."
Most people feel fear at some level. How they USE that fear is up to them. The conscious person is the switch-master in all choices involving themselves. What they are most afraid of is that they cannot choose another person to move as they would Will it. Yet another bi-product of the neurotic ego.
All that I say isn't as it seems, it is nothing more than talking about something you've yet to witness through personal experience. Only when you HAVE witnessed what I'm talking about will it make sense in the context I'm referring to. Whatever it is before experience is purely imaginary. Just remember that all thoughts can drive a person to make choices.
It's not that imagination isn't real in our perceivable reality; it's that people can act upon those imaginations (thoughts) and bring them into reality.
This is evidenced by all human products; buildings, streets, signs, letters, DVD players, TVs, computers, etc. Many of these things may be based upon elements that have already existed in this perceivable reality, but it is man that has shaped it into what it is today via his own imaginations (thoughts). That is why "thoughts become things." Thoughts can only become real because the person acting upon them IS real. If not, their choices would never impact us to any slight degree.
All one has to do is provide influence via expressed possibilities (actions) or communication (rhetoric: sending thoughts from one mind to another.)
If any of this appears as fallacy, conflicts with what is known; ask if you have EVER experienced these ideas in perceivable reality or have you ever LOOKED at these ideas AS you were acting through your experience. These question are intrinsic to your learning; all questions are intrinsic to your learning. Questions are what drive your attention and points of recognition. The problem with Logic is that it is based upon what IS known or IS a possibility. If neither exist within a mind, the communication will be lacking. The thing to realize here is that all communication is lacking at every given point, but after communication you seem to be able to improve in your learning. It's not that what a person says is right or wrong in contextual ideas, but rather what will be found later is that a flaw in logic was present which tells you more about the person you were communicating, the idea becomes sound after you have experienced it first-hand and becomes a part of you or simply stands as an personally-experienced truth. Things are only as true as you perceive them to be. Change your perception and the truth of an idea or experience changes with it. If all perceptions are covered at one given point in time; absolute truth can be experienced. That is why there is no such thing as absolute truth. Each truth or lie leads you along the journey of how to learn. If you are frustrated at an idea; know that this idea frustrates you. Okay, now set that aside and focus on how the idea CAN work so that it is not frustrating. You'll find yourself looking for alternative perspectives revolving around one particular idea. You may even find yourself thinking of alternative USES of one particular idea in ONE or MANY processes.
The thing to remember with all of what I am saying is that you cannot discount any part of it. That it appears conflicting may not always be a logic issue on the part of the speaker. There are at least two logical minds at work when communication is involved. This is the key to remember.

And to answer your question directly, Krieger, is difficult from a perspective where one doesn't see the process of experience as learning, but as knowing before experience has taken place. This is where most logic falls apart.
The difference between wisdom and knowledge is experience in the use of knowledge.
All illusions and doubt ought to be expiated from the mind through experiences.
Have you ever heard of "Not taking things for granted" or "being grateful for what you have?"
These two phrases focus on the idea and experience that BEING in the moment is more important than being outside of it; per se, remembering the past pains, anticipating a future fear.
Some will focus on what IS NOT here; others will focus on what IS here in this moment.
"He doesn't love me," or "She never does dishes." or "You never do your homework."
All of these things stray from one immutable point, "What is happening?"
If he isn't loving you, who or what IS he loving? If she never does dishes, What IS she doing? If you never do your homework, What ARE you doing?
If you want to know someone for who they really are, focus on what they ARE doing and leave what they ARE NOT doing as an illusion only if you wish to be in the present moment. If you wish to escape like many others, you will cause all the things from which you are attempting to escape. You will cause pain by attempting to escape it; you will create fear in others by seeking safety. It is so because empathy is a form of perception. If one person perceives a fear, they become afraid, if one person perceives pain, a slight pain or reaction to pain is felt.
All of this is just one process; to better understand others, understand yourself, otherwise others will appear as foreign and wrong or familiar and right. This last part is another bi-product of the neurotic ego basing reality only on what it knows at the moment. If the ego is right, than we aren't perceiving reality in the moment, we are perceiving it through the looking glass shaded with figments of our own imagination and we will miss out on copious amounts of experience and awareness because of it. However, if you learn that this happens from experience and change your choices to effect your reality, than all the past becomes the building blocks of your future. You cannot learn without mistakes, and all mistakes do is propel us towards our inevitable goal.
It's just like Thomas Edison said, "It's not that I made 1000 mistakes, I just learned of 1000 ways NOT to make a light bulb, but I only need one way for a light bulb to work."

Understanding this one statement will greatly increase learning and provide adequate momentum through building upon each success. When I was 8 years old, I called it, "Steam rolling." It was, in my mind at the time, a way to CEMENT a way of doing things so that it worked 85% of the time and the remaining 15% was learning "1000 ways not to make it work."
God may not repeat himself, but I being a man must do so to be excellent.
I already know that all of my rhetoric won't convince nor satiate a person's experience-less mind because I know from experience that I am not satiated without experience. Without ideas, experience is hollow and empty. Without experiences, ideas become rotted fruit in the minds of men spoiling the rest of the barrel.
This is why it is spoken of in the bible, "Increasing knowledge increases sorrow." And we wonder why there are so many people today with Depression and committing suicide, give me a break.

It really doesn't need to be dragged on like this. It's the way most human minds work, or, better known as, human nature. It has always been like this, and will always be like this as long as we are human beings.

Lets compare -

Far back in the days, MOST people believed that some outside intellectual force made the sun rise. A few discarded the belief and went on to doubt, or even prove the belief otherwise.

Today, more things are explained but not all. A harder subject to compare due to the lack of provability. Death, MOST people believe we live on into an afterlife. A few discard the belief and say otherwise.

Human nature seeks in understanding our world, in generations we will believe more scientific based things, but ultimately, be left to believe in unprovable things to fulfill our nature.

>>21
Okay, first off, you're not wrong, but your rhetoric appears to be projecting a form of defensiveness. If man-kind is not guilty there should be no need to defend him; am I right?
Ah, unless you assume that here on /sci/ we are conjuring accusations of some sort to undermine the "human nature" inherent within each and every individual human being.
"Let's compare -"
It cracks me up every time I hear it. Each and every comparison of physical objects is illogical. To do so turns an illusion into a perceivable reality until challenged. No two objects are the same therefore comparisons are loose and disconnected.
If one of two identical twins commits a crime; are both guilty?
The purposes of comparison can and should only be made between ideas to which there is only a measure of ethics; all parties should gain from the transaction. If even one stands to lose, then the idea and/or comparison itself should share that same loss before either is born into this world by human choice.

But there is one missing component to your theory that you, perhaps for lack of further contemplation or study, have neglected to mention. How do you prove the existence of the unknown? We can tell that AN unknown exists only when something new appears before us in rhetoric, human expression, or the compilation of both or either. So the knowledge of the existence of an unknown comes only after an experience. That experience may take many shapes and colors, be it imagination, emotions, reflections, creative thinking, critical thinking, conversation, etc, etc. And when we know that an unknown did exist, even as it had, it only did so along with our ignorance of it, but now it is known as experience. We as humans allow the existence of the unknown within ignorance because it too is a part of "human nature."
This is a tactic often what is taught in school known as "Shame Learning."
It is used to see if a person is paying attention or merely accepting or going along with what is said. The truth of the logic is that what is shamed is the going along with or accepting of a stated idea without redress or challenge. Why? Because accepting or going along with any idea without redress or challenge is feigning awareness and does much more harm than actually being ignorant. As one of my favorite books stated very adequately, "Honest ignorance beats false belief any time."
And one more thing; we shouldn't be here to tell that other people should change. It is the choice-maker living within the body who should make that decision for themselves.
And to back me up is the Golden Rule. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."
If I want to be allowed to decide for myself I should allow others the same so that I too may be allowed more of the same.
The antithesis to this is simple;
to judge a person's actions against your own/to compare yourself with another person/to weigh a person based upon what you know is the gravest mistake (sin) we could ever make. The result is always a separation which is exactly the intended goal of the neurotic ego.

>>21
Oh, and I almost forgot one more thing. When you say, "It really doesn't need to be dragged on like this." This callous inconsideration for people's understanding is what really gets me. I understand that YOU may understand from a simple point of view, but what about others? Should I sacrifice my consideration for their understanding by simplifying and just stating, "Do this cause I said so. Trust me." type of attitude? I hardly think that will help when I'm teaching a class full of multi-leveled learning individuals, wouldn't you agree. If you understand, then instead of simplifying it for others, do so for yourself instead and then add to the conversation with your own ideas that either challenge or support the conversation; that's right, I'm encouraging you to support conversation or challenge it making it an argument. Arguments are just as productive as conversations if you learn what it is you should be paying attention to and what you should be ignoring.
Ignore your own ignorance and be aware of your awareness. Choose choice, have faith in faith, believe in belief, and practice free-will through free-will. If you wish to be aware of ignorance you will ignore your own awareness. If you choose to NOT choose, a choice will be made without you. If you don't believe in belief, that belief will escape your belief. If you don't have faith in faith, you will lose that faith, and if you do not practice free-will through free-will you will still be the same coward tomorrow as you are today. The only way to achieve freedom is to believe that you are not free as you stand, but only as you work to achieve it. Freedom should be a never-ending battle for you even as you lay dying on your deathbed. The so-called RIGHTS, liberties and freedoms spoken of within the constitution and bill of rights is meant as a goal, what we as humans consistently strive to achieve. If it was so without our actions; then we should all just die now cause we have no cause to fight for if we are already free.
Yet we still try to say depression is a disease that escapes the understanding of our current technology. All chemical changes within the human body are a result of repeated thoughts. By that I mean any thought that re-enforces an emotion. It's like throwing another log on the fire.
Finally, I leave all of you reading this with a few final words,
"When we don't do what we are purposed to do, we do what we know we ought not do."
"Change what you can't love; love what you can't change."
"Privileged are those that think themselves free; Free are those that have earned it themselves."
The latter is a study between the characteristics of Beta dogs and Alpha dogs.
Beta dogs often travel by themselves or as a lower pack member often taking what they have not earned just to survive.
Alpha dogs always travel in packs (safety in numbers) and always strives to move to the top knowing that it can be taken away at any moment especially by a Beta dog. An Alpha dog protects what it has worked for, a Beta dog will use what it thinks it owns as a means to survive. This is the difference between "Golden Rule" pack-survival thinking versus loner self-preservation end-justifies-the-means thinking.
This is evidenced in humans, but as I have said before, comparing one object with another is illogical. I did not say that the thought processes between both were included in this conclusion. Thought processes are intangible and therefore logically comparable, but tangible items are illogically comparable.
If you really want to understand all that I'm saying; just do as Sun Tzu would have you do with my stated ideas, practices, and experiences..."Divide and conquer."

The only problem I'm having with your arguments is that they seem to be self-contradictory.  You have essentially told us to think for ourselves, but you have not justified this.  As I said before, you are suffering from the is-ought problem.  I certainly don't disagree with your conclusions, only their justification, or more specifically, the lack thereof.  It is beginning to appear to me that, instead of this being something that may be proven or disproven, it is something that actually varies between people.  The tone of this entire conversation has seemed to me to be exceedingly Objectivistic, so I will cite a problem with Objectivism that I have seen.  Objectivism, in saying that people should think for themselves and are their own driving force, leans towards elitism.  I don't take this as being a necessarily negative aspect, but it does deter those who aren't capable of the sort of greatness of action required of one who create every action from their own thought.  This is where the is-ought problem comes into play.  It is a fact that taking other people's opinions as fact can lead to negative results.  So those of us who are able to take an array of ideas and make a choice based on the analysis thereof would be better off doing so.  For those who can't do so, though, it may be to their benefit to merely do what others say at times.  There is no right or wrong to it, for to assign the values of right or wrong to something, you must first ask,"For whom?" or ,"For what?"

>>24
Hmm. I see your point.
Here is my rebuttal.
The division in understanding from what I had said is this;
First you have an awareness of where you are second you have an idea of where you'd like to go. The contradiction is the difference between the two perspectives.
There are only four reasons why people don't go anywhere in life;
1) They have recognized a path that they can take and have opted out.
2) They have not recognized a path and wander about thinking they are going somewhere without realizing where they are.
3) They are being held captive against their Will.
4) They are dead.

Yeah, the flaw in objectivity is that it appears to lack feeling where subjectivity is the projection of emotions onto what is being done or decisions being made; that's why it is a slippery slope with other people.

If I had to guess the existence of all things to which we are currently involved within; it would be that we are in a constant state of instability to which every part of us is striving for stability. The more we strive for stability the more instability that is created. The more we strive for instability the more stability is created. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Knowing that both occur at the same time means we can make appropriate decisions; ignoring this means we make ignorant decisions with equally ignorant consequences and forms of recovery.

>>24
And one more thing. Because I have stated these things on this board means that an opposite and equal reaction has been made from them. To what degree is still yet to be determined. How can we tell how far the ripples of our choices go? Is it in network science? Is it chaos theory? Or are our choices limited to the degree of awareness and involvement of others? Here is my theory;
If an outcome makes you unhappy, the choice that was made will cause more of the same.
If an outcome makes you happy, the choice that was made will cause more of the same.
If an outcome makes others unhappy, the choice that was made will cause more of the same.
If an outcome makes others happy, the choice that was made will cause more of the same.

What's left from here is building upon your successes and learning from the mistakes of others. Ps. a mistake of another person is your perception of something that you would not like to happen to yourself and to avoid making the same choice and make opposing choices to counter this perception in your own life.

All that is standing in a person's way is an true-to-life emotion backing an illusion of one's own perception.
If you are happy with something standing between you and happiness then love what you believe you cannot change.
If you are not happy with something standing between you and your happiness then change what you cannot love.

I'm telling you; it's all pretty cut and dry, but like I said, it's a matter of personal involvement in one's own life. I had to get pretty involved in my own life and stop distracting myself with other people's affairs. Whenever I find a gap in time where I would normally do something distracting from my personal involvement I would review the notes I had taken and begin formulating new ones and begin further research to better understand and utilize this body I have at my disposal. All the other beliefs are a form of getting people to understand this point from practicing what is preached. You may ask why and for what purpose at the beginning, but your belief of what a thing or process is before you have experience and afterwards will most definitely be entirely different if seen through the eyes of observation without judgment (objectivity). As with regards to objectivity not being as effective with people is because people want to be judged on the side of virtue even if they are wrong so they can save face or at least have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves. Objectivity is not always moral or ethical when dealing with individuals capable of subjectivity. Sometimes it is counter-productive. The only way to be certain is to try an objective choice and witness the outcome. Is it a benefit for you and the other person or is it not a benefit for you and the other person. It's a matter of ethics (all parties involved benefit from a transaction) in this case.
The solution to your inquiry will not have an adequate logically provable answer at this point in time. Only that you will need to further research the standards by which individuals in a society behave and work with one-another if finding out the means by which others are able to do so is your goal.
You can't ask your philosophy professor if he can help you replace the distributor cap on your vehicle; you can't ask your mechanic if you should buy health insurance from Kaizer; you can't ask your mother if the woman you are about to marry is right for you unless you are expecting to get an opinion.
In other words, philosophy and theology is my game, ask me questions about this and I'll give you my professional understanding of it as best I am able. Ask me if the choices other people make is right or wrong or not the way it should be done and you'll get my opinion 100% of the time. Why? Because I'm not other people, your mechanic isn't an insurance agent, your philosophy professor isn't a mechanic, and your mother isn't you.
I would have thought that you would have figured that out by now, but that just goes to show me how far along a person really is in understanding the intention and purpose of a something as simple as a question.

It's like it is stated in the Hagakure;
"Make light the large problems; make important the small."
This is so because all large problems are an accumulation of small ones just as we humans are an accumulation of atoms.

If you are wondering what love is, it is something that you must figure out for yourself. This is true in all things as far as I am concerned. I may not have to rebuild an engine, but I can find someone who IS able and willing and pay them absurd amounts of money to do so. If the car runs in the end, the end justifies the means. The only way that this last statement works is if the means are ethically sound (All parties benefit from a transaction).
I can show you a pot of gold which appears valuable to me and I am able to use to my benefit, but if gold has no intrinsic value nor any significant purpose for yourself then what appears as a treasure to me will appear as trash to you.
It doesn't mean I'm making a new philosophy that everyone should follow. I am making a new philosophy for myself for me to follow. If others find value in my expressions of my philosophy I can give them hints, clues, and even some explanations, but as far as if a person should or shouldn't do as I do is entirely their choice because I would appreciate having the same choice. That's applying the Law of Allowing, The Law of Choice, the Law of Giving (is receiving) and the Golden Rule all in one. The application of putting multiple values into one process is called integration. A person who integrates themselves into processes and integrates processes into themselves is a person with integrity. It means they wish to be involved and involve things within themselves. A person who wishes to 'opt out' of integrity is a person with dis-integrity (disintegrate). This person will appear to separate themselves all the time from every event that presented to them as an opportunity. The choice is yours to make now that you are aware that a choice and a consequence are intrinsically linked without failure. Whether there are repercussions or other forms of reciprocation from the consequences is merely the degree of receipt for the work you've put in including, but not limited to what you've already received emotionally for said work at the time of delivery.

The only way a choice can exist to the awareness of an individual is if they "may or may not" make a choice. I prefer to see myself not being able to make a choice and doing so anyway so in my state of rebellion I, through my own choices, set myself free. Free from what? Free from what I used to be and am no more. The only good bad-emotions can bring a person is knowing that a person feels bad and being a living creature needs to do something about this bad feeling if they cannot love it, or love it if they do not wish or are not (believing themselves unable) to change it.

If you want true contradiction, are letters sounds? Are words their meanings? Are people the images of themselves in our mind? These are important and extremely valid questions if we are to take seriously our life. For some however, the only thing serious in their life is how far they were able to tank on Everquest last night without getting agro. And you know what? That's okay with me that THEY do this, just that I do NOT wish to do this. Their treasure is not my treasure; but that doesn't mean I can't respect them and their choices by allowing them to do more of the same. It is because I allow them to do so that I am being respectful. If I did everything within my power to stop them or ridicule them then I should anticipate and expect more of the same from them upon my own way of doing things.

Just because I don't understand doesn't mean that it's wrong. It just means that I am ignorant and in desperate need of tutelage to understand it further.

dear fucking god. I left r9k to get away from exaaaactly this bullshit.

>>28
That just goes to show you that the philo is taking over this town.
"...You see us comin'
And you all together run for cover
We're taking over this town...Here we come reach for your gun and you better listen well my friend, you see It's been slow down below, Aimed at you we're the cowboys from hell. Deed is done again, we've won. Ain't talking no tall tales friend
'Cause high noon, your doom.
Comin' for you we're the cowboys from hell!"

Sorry, I'm afraid mediocrity is about to be put to the blender test. Will it survive? We shall soon see. :3

>>28
That just goes to show you that the philo is taking over this town.
"...You see us comin'
And you all together run for cover
We're taking over this town...Here we come reach for your gun and you better listen well my friend, you see It's been slow down below, Aimed at you we're the cowboys from hell. Deed is done again, we've won. Ain't talking no tall tales friend
'Cause high noon, your doom.
Comin' for you we're the cowboys from hell!"

Sorry, I'm afraid mediocrity is about to be put to the blender test. Will it survive? We shall soon see. :3

Ok...I wasn't looking for an esoteric life-method developed for yourself.  If you can't prove your idea to work for others, then for others to adopt it at all would be contradicting its preachings.  So, either prove it or leave it; otherwise, I have no interest in it.

Also, laws of physics are just that: laws of physics.  They may not be used as proof of a metaphorically similar situation.