Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

The price of judgment

By David Young - posted Monday, 2 February 2009

In my article “The age of reason” I gave my version of the mechanics involved in bringing about paradigm shifts. I am using “paradigm” in the general sense not the “hard fact” scientific sense. That was a “how it happens” article. This article is a “why it happens” approach.

My research through old documents from all religions seems to indicate a common theme; that judgment is the root cause of our problems. The most familiar version in the Christian paradigm is "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it" (Genesis 217 KJV). I read this as judgment.

But if judgment is the problem then any answer to the problem must be free of judgment. This means no religion, no philosophy, no right or wrong, no good and evil. It had to be a “stand alone” answer.


As well as that, “judgment” has many meanings so it is necessary to find the type of judgment that plays havoc with the human race. So I am looking for what I call “toxic” judgment.

This is my hypothesis.

If a human does not know something they make a wild guess. They then claim their wild guess is true. From then on every time they make a decision based on their judgment they will mess up because they are making decisions based on a wild guess and not based on reality.

That was the general hypothesis. From there I looked for specific types of wild guess. I identified two types of wild guess that divorced us from reality:

  1. finding in the negative because we cannot prove the positive; and
  2. finding in the positive because we cannot prove the negative.

I called the first of these “The Hiroshima Principle”.


The Hiroshima Principle: judging the negative to be true because we cannot prove the positive.

We can never know if a new technology will have detrimental side effects because, until the technology is introduced, the detrimental side effects do not exist. It is impossible to prove the existence of something that does not yet exist.

Scientists tell us that there is no proof of any harm associated with the introduction of genetic engineering, therefore genetic engineering is safe. That there is no proof of harm is true. There is no proof of harm because until genetic engineering is introduced whatever harm there may be does not exist.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

20 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Young has been a writer for 20 years. At other times he has been an architect and a flying instructor. Details of his books and writings can be found at his website

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Young

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 20 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy