Can you trust your own reasoning?.. .

What if the issue is something that might be unable to be proved with 100% confirmation?.. .I asked quite a lot of people about something,they say there is no such thing nothing to worry about,my logic is saying still better to safe and avoid it.. .Another problem is I don't know how much data is necessary at times.. .

reply to post by QuantumSeeker


As mentioned, no human can ever predict even the next few seconds accurately. No mortal can do that.

All that we humans can ever hope for is to eliminate as much error possibilities as possible, and be prepared for what is come, cool and collected, ready to change, correct errors and progress again.


As for data required, we humans must acknowledge that none of us is a know it all. You and I may be limited in our experiences and education, but there other fellow humans whom do have better grasp and comprehension with their gift of intelligence, area of specialization/experiences, rationality, logic and reason.

And thus the need for MORE to share insights, for more the better to share insights to bring to the table. Rule by ONE had long been terminated, for mankind had suffered much under the hands of insane dictators whom thought only they alone held the truth. But like any other humans, there were flawed, and provened flawed.

Thus the Rule by Assembly, to bring more heads to resolve issues of humanity.

One error the rich powerful elites made is to presume that their assembly is the right way forward. They are only delusional. The truth is that their 'assembly' are only made up of 'yes' men cronies - politicians, academics, military leaders, community leaders and even families, whom know which side of their bread is buttered and will always agree with the dictator, for the sake of survival.

Unfortunately, 'yes' men had only led to mankind's regression for centuries. Time to wake up to realities.

For example, in a council of 10 men, if 9 provides data that their path to progress is the best, but 1 is contrary to the rest, would you discount his insights and proceed?

No. For the sake of truth, the 9 should study into that dissenter's viewpoints, check his data, as it is evident and not based on intuition, and can be verified repeatedly, to either correct him if he is wrong, but to accept his data if it was right, in order to progress.

In the end, no man knows the future and nothing goes according to plan. However, if a plan had been evolved through critical analysis and risk management, whenever problems arises, it would had been ANTICIPATED and countered, in order to stay true to the course.

It is only when the plans shows too much variables in suffering and pain, that it should be paused - so that errors can be learnt, corrected and progress again.

However, when intuition is used, over-riding the data from others, one is merely gambling with the future. If luck does not hold, then at the first sign of problems, that plan would be abandoned and taming fires become the agenda, instead of focusing upon the path that the original plan had sought for.

In summary, more heads are better than one, and leaders must learn to listen to more, instead of to their cronies, if they seek to lead mankind on enlightened paths.

If no one can provide fully scientific data,what would you do then?.. .As for calculated risks,what is your definition?.. .Is better safe than sorry a phrase to counter calculated risks?.. .

reply to post by QuantumSeeker


Do I trust my own reasoning?

I smoke cigarettes with absolutely nothing beneficial to them, and absolutely everything bad about them.

I know all about the foods that are bad for ya, and that's all I eat.

Having nothing to show for 20 years of gambling, I just KNOW I'm about to hit the big one!

I don't think a court would ever convict me of being rational.

If there is any doubt on your reasoning, then no