Article 56

Future Intentions.

In this third section, I intend to exemplify some current party-specific belief-only policies which could be replaced with knowledge-only alternatives, the required knowledge already being available; some for which the appropriate knowledge is yet to be acquired and ought to have been sought instead of implementing mere belief; and some on which available knowledge casts doubt, even if it does not yet conclusively refute their sustaining beliefs. At this stage of my website, my expectation is that my readers are already aware that policies which are currently proffered for elective choice are those of belief/counter-belief; that such choice when made, is merely a transient belief-consensus pending resumption of the debate and the next elective choice, as Socrates observed more than 2000 years ago; that before and since then, democracies have been selecting one belief or another in the absence of any knowledge as to how their promised results are to be delivered by their implementation; that dictatorships make these belief-only decisions for the populous, no elections being permitted; that, it would be a vast improvement all round, if party-specific knowledge-only policies were offered to electorates who knew in advance that they would deliver in reality as promised; and that while elections remain the best means of deciding by majority-vote which party-specific knowledge-only options are to be implemented to deliver their promised results in reality, no such party-specific knowledge-only policies have ever been on offer.

Thus, it is my intention to demonstrate in the third section of this website that it is essential for politicians, civil service policy-makers, and the voting public to clearly understand the difference between knowledge and belief by recognising that reality stimulates our imaginations through our senses to beliefs transformable to positive or negative knowledge only by evaluation of their compliance or non-compliance with this reality in practice, or to those which can only be accepted, rejected or suspended as beliefs beyond reality-evaluation in pro tem practice or in principle, but which cannot be accepted as knowledge; that such reality-evaluation of specific beliefs produced the cause-effect craft- and self-knowledge which secured our group-species survival from time immemorial and the cause-effect scientific, engineering and technological knowledge which enhanced our welfare from the seventeenth century onwards and would still do so were it not thwarted by belief; that our knowledge-only development of social cohesion has been variously disrupted by conflicting religious beliefs, by knowledge-rejecting secular beliefs or by the reaction of ignored reality in ways which belief is unable to anticipate and avert; that the injunction ‘to do unto others as you would have them do to you’ is the knowledge which harmonises our innate selfishness with our innate need for the hierarchical social cohesion which secures our survival as the group-species we are; and that all other group-species have their species-specific versions of such innate knowledge without which they would terminate their existence by internal violence.

Again, it is my intention in this section, to seek ubiquitous acceptance that secular behavioural beliefs whether already implemented or not, must now be reality-evaluated for compliance with reality as knowledge-only, or for non-compliance as belief-only; that the absence of such reality-evaluation leads to belief-driven civil violence and war; and that its lax application corrupts what could be the social, economic and environmental sciences to the pseudosciences now responsible for deteriorating personal behaviour, diminishing social cohesion, recurring financial crises, and increasing uncertainty of material and energy supplies by diverting financial resources from real to unreal objectives, some of which have been identified in the first and second sections of this website and will be revisited with additional examples, and dealt with more fully, in this third section. 28/5/21.

© Against Belief-Consensus Ltd 2022
Website Design: C2 Group