>>really understand. This is because we are genetically-biased >>against self-knowledge. Self-knowledge isn't for everyone, >> but I like it. > >But is it true knowlege or something from a >book? Remember books only teach the first 10%, I agree with you that books and education are only the first step in discovering "truth". In fact, a great deal of education is designed to erase common sense and replace it with contemporary mythology. If a positive assertion is consistent with the science as I understand it, AND it agrees with my own empirical observations, then I consider it at least provisionally "true". I consider everything else "politics" (i.e., "one coercing another"). After a decade of study, I have discovered that we engineers are fairly unique in the animal kingdom. By developing the habit of "falsification" from a young age in our work (i.e., "debugging" our own work), we have established the prerequisite "wetware" (neurons, dendrites, etc.) to think critically about our own social system. On the other hand, so-called "social scientists" -- those who have been specifically trained for the job of analyzing our society -- have never developed the wetware required for critical thought. It certainly doesn't bode well for our society! In fact, I doubt that our present way of life will last another decade, but the folks in the driver's seat can't see it coming... Jay -------------------------- SCIENTIFIC METHOD The "scientific method" is the ONLY way yet discovered for discovering truth amid a world of lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this: a. Observe some aspect of the universe. b. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed. c. Use the theory to make predictions. d. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations. e. Modify the theory in the light of your results. Go to step c. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html] -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.