I see all lives where the individuals have any choice at all as constant trial and error. They may not deal with the data the way we would wish or consider rational and they may not — Coben

Trial and error is exactly what people get with choice and is exactly what people don't want but what is forced on them. Our ability to choose has never been more abundant and lies at the root of much misery. We hate uncertainty, we hate experimentation. Therein lies the power of advertising.

Scientists and engineers do trial and error under proscribed circumstances and thereby advance our knowledge. It is not something we (mere mortals) do naturally. We prefer routine and the familiar.

Well, that was a bunch of posts in a row where you repeat, more or less, your position, but don't really interact with anything I said. I really did understand from the first time you asserted something that you believed it. I guess repeated assertion to wear down a discussion partner is probably effective. Trial and error might find other approaches more rewarding.

But I'll not wait around to find out.

Well I tried and failed. I was perhaps on an errant's quest.

1) people often want things that make them unhappy 2) if they weren't choosing from a variety the companies would slowly choose to give them less of one, since it costs them money. — Coben

Have you heard of the Lidl and the Aldi? They do exactly that. Limiting their choice. They are the fastest growing supermarket chain at the moment.
And yes people often choose things that make them unhappy. It is called drugs. They give a temporary high and a long lasting low. And that happens to be most of the things people buy.

I am a bit horrified with that black and white thinking. "If A is false then non-A is true, so to disprove is to prove something...". Reality is not just this or that but is a complexity of this's and that's and a matter of conditions and degrees. A president can make both decisions we like and ones we do not like, and that makes arguing if he is good or bad president a fool's game, but we do that all the time as if one argument cancels out the other. Water is not a liquid when it is cold enough to become ice or warm enough to evaporate. Our truths can be conditional not just true or false.

I think maybe you're confusing me with the people I'm arguing against? I didn't say the A and not-A thing you're quoting, that was leo, in response to me. I did assent to that later, and dismissed it as beside the point, but since that's the point you're talking about here: neither of us is saying anything against conditional truths. "A" can be a conditional statement like "water is a liquid between the temperatures of 0C and 100C", and that's either true or not. Even that conditional statement might be true in some conditions and false in others... like, for example, if the pressure is not 1atm. That just means that only the broadest more well-conditioned statement is always true, and any less-conditioned statement is sometimes true, sometimes false, but in any particular context it's either true then or not.

Thank goodness, someone who doesn't think we already know everything important, and if someone questions our understanding of reality it is not a sign of being an idiot. I appreciate that so much.

Okay, it appears we have agreement.

May we say our planet is as aminated as primitive people believed? Might it change our concept of reality if we thought everything as of the spirit instead of as matter with no spirit?

Whoo who is "we"? I decidedly do not want to end up in the Christian heaven. I do not want a reality where there are no risks and I have no sense of being needed and affecting the world. Neither heaven or hell is a desirable reality to me. Surely the popularity of gambling seems to disprove what you said about people, not loving uncertainty. Life is hard because no one would want to play the game if it were not challenging.

I am listening to an explanation of what liberty has to do with our progress, and liberty gives everyone the chance to discover things and to be inventive. This is the fun of being human. You appear to be as authoritarian as a Christian. If you were born in the US that is unavoidable because Christianity permeates our cultural understanding of reality. I think life on earth would be better without Christianity.

On my book shelve is a 1930 book titled "Science of Citizens" by Lancelot Hogben. Education for technology is not education for science. It is authoritarian and harmful to our liberty and democracy. Liberal education was education for science when we had a better understanding of what science has to do with good moral judgment and democracy. That is a little more political than the intention of this thread, but it is just wrong to buy into the authoritarian system we put over ourselves when we replaced the education we had with education for technology.

Whoo who is "we"? I decidedly do not want to end up in the Christian heaven — Athena

You might not have much choice in the matter. It might have to be either Heaven or Hell.

But as we achieve Godlike powers it is obvious that our ideas about God creating a Heaven and Hell to reward or punish us is very primitive concept cooked up by stone age people.

You might not have much choice in the matter. It might have to be either Heaven or Hell.

But as we achieve Godlike powers it is obvious that our ideas about God creating a Heaven and Hell to reward or punish us is very primitive concept cooked up by stone age people. — ovdtogt

Zeus feared once we learned the technology of fire we would learn all other technologies and rival the gods. He created the first woman and gave her to the first man, and he gave them a wedding gift. The man and woman were warned by another god, not to open the gift but when the woman was left alone curiosity got the best of her and she opened the gift. Out flew the miseries that Zeus gave them to slow down their progress for as long as possible. However, today we are technologically smart and without reverence for the gods, we lack the wisdom to use this technology wisely. :wink:

Have you heard of the Lidl and the Aldi? They do exactly that. Limiting their choice. They are the fastest growing supermarket chain at the moment. — ovdtogt

I know lidl. The offer a reduced selection because they snatch products they can, at the moment get cheap. They have reduced labor and cut costs everywhere they can. So people,with their ever lowering salaries go to LIDL not because of the reduced selection, but because of the lower prices. And, as I pointed out earlier, this isn't really a response to the point I made. But it doesn't stand as evidence, as least LIDL doesn't, I don't know the other store.