Why I love shows like Buzzfeed Unsolved Supernatural

Before I go there, let me express my frustration with you supernatural believers.

First of all, we skeptics are not the close-minded ones here.

Every time we encounter unexplained phenomena, we accept we literally have nothing to draw any conclusions from. I mean, the keyword is unexplained. That’s not being dismissive, that’s being reasonable and humble.

Meanwhile, you already have your minds set to automatically perceive any inexplicable things as supernatural and you insist those “orbs” and “mist” in photos are ghosts instead of light-reflecting dust particles and air moisture, respectively.

Not only you are mentally rigid, you are very dismissive of scientific explanations; instead of accepting the possibility of being wrong, you perceive scientists as those who invalidate your beliefs out of spite. Not to mention the arrogance to think you know everything despite having nothing.

You expect us to believe you are the open-minded ones?

Some of you also believe skeptics don’t experience the supernatural because ghosts purposely avoid non-believers; they exist if you believe they exist.

What a very convenient argument, isn’t it? You believe excusing your inability to provide proofs relieves you of the burden of proof.

Some of you also claim there are skeptics who have experienced the supernatural and end up as believers. My question: are you sure they were skeptics?

To categorise them simplistically, there are two types of non-believers.

The first type are the “rational” non-believers; they reject religious and supernatural beliefs because they are deemed nonsensical and against reason. The second type are the “emotional” ones; they reject those beliefs because they have bad personal experiences with the adherents.

From my observations, many don’t distinguish religious and supernatural beliefs from each other and, even though the non-believers can belong to both categories, the ones I have encountered tend to belong to the latter.

I believe hating anything solely for emotional reasons is valid; we are humans, it is normal for us to have strong feelings against anything. But, it is also obvious those “emotional” non-believers have never dismantled the beliefs they despise rationally.

If they encounter a new belief which they have zero negative experiences with and/or preconceived beliefs about, there is a chance they would end up embracing it, just like how some westerners who grew up with and traumatised by Christianity end up embracing a New Age belief and the likes; while it’s not common, it definitely happens.

If their “skepticism” is selective or “emotional”, they were never skeptics in the first place.

Now, about the title…

I love Buzzfeed Unsolved Supernatural and its spiritual successor Ghost Files because one co-host – Ryan Bergara – is a believer and the other – Shane Madej – is a skeptic.

While the shows are created and narrated by Bergara, I do appreciate his inclusion of Madej. He is willing to have his belief in the supernatural getting challenged and even made fun of. He refuses to put his own belief on a higher pedestal than Madej’s, even though he has the power to.

While the shows may not aggressively challenge people’s belief in the supernatural, they remind them that not everyone is a believer, that there is always possibility the supernatural doesn’t exist.

And having Shane Madej as a co-host can feel empowering to the skeptics watching at home. It feels cathartic to have someone funny and outspoken on your side.

.

.

From what I see in the comment sections, the Boogaras, fans who believe in the supernatural, seem to be louder than the Shaniacs, fans who are skeptics. While they love joking Madej being a demon because of his ‘bravery”, many genuinely believe his skepticism “protects” him from the ghosts.

But, just because they are dominant, it doesn’t mean they are unchallenged.

Even though I haven’t encountered aggressive full-blown arguments between the two fandom subgroups (maybe they exist and I just haven’t found them), I do notice the Boogaras cannot spew opinions without being held accountable by the Shaniacs.

I don’t know if this is unique to comment sections of those two shows… or this is just the nature of comment sections in general.

.

.

Some people may find me hypocritical for denouncing supernatural belief while still identifying with a religion.

I admit that I cannot rationalise my religiosity. I still see myself as a Muslim purely for emotional reasons. Growing up, my experiences with religion were either positive or neutral; none of them were traumatising in any way.

I am still religious not because I see religions as a sensical, pragmatic and moral necessity, but because I find religiosity emotionally comforting.

While I have definitely criticised anti-religion people for having simplistic and occasionally prejudiced arguments, I also cannot blame them for hating religions, considering their traumatic religious upbringings.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

How social sciences and humanities make me appreciate STEM

For some time, I grew up loving STEM. I loved reading encyclopedias and I loved watching the documentaries. It felt like they were expanding my horizon, my imagination.

Then, I started hating STEM classes when I was about ten or eleven. I was put off by the rigid pedagogy. They were all about rote learning, memorising facts and formulas; they didn’t expand my imagination and certainly not my horizon.

They didn’t entirely put me off any STEM interests, as I still watched science documentaries, albeit with less passion. But, they did make me despise formal STEM education and changed my focus towards social sciences.

I enjoyed my sociology classes in high school because not only they didn’t have rigid pedagogy (relatively speaking), they also compelled me to read between the lines. I did major in sociology briefly in University of Indonesia before dropping out, because I hated the social environment.

Then, I chose to major in media and communication at Deakins University in Melbourne…. and my mind was blown.

The curriculum was quite all over the place; I learned not only the social aspects of the topics, but also the cultural, ethical and even metaphysical ones. It mixed both social sciences and humanities.

Unlike social sciences, which study observable human behaviours, humanities focus on the the abstract and non-biological things that underlie those behaviours. Because humanities are dependent on interpretations, they are very subjective.

But, just because they are subjective, that does not mean we can say anything we want. We still have to provide evidences.

If you believe a novelist is a bigot, you have to point out parts of their novels which depict women and/or minorities in dehumanising manners. Your feelings are not evidences. If the depictions are much more complicated than you previously thought, then you have to acknowledge the complexity as well.

I actually argue that because of the subjectivity, humanities are very challenging to learn. Unlike social sciences where quantitative evidences are an option, humanities have to rely entirely on qualitative ones. You have to convince people the intangible and immeasurable things you talk about actually exist and affect their lives.

Now, about the title…

Even back when I loved STEM education, I used to believe the disciplines were full of clear-cut knowledge. I notice many people also felt the same. Such belief was perpetuated even further by media headlines about the latest scientific discoveries.

Then, one day, those people and I started reading the research papers.

They found out the results were either inconclusive, impossible to dumb down, contradictory to each other or eventually deemed incorrect. Feeling like they had been duped for years, they started railing against “mainstream” STEM for its impotence in finding the truth… or worse, for being a tool of the elite to keep the masses “misinformed”.

On the other hand, I ended up appreciating STEM even more.

Despite being entirely driven by quantitative data (which many people believe to be clear cut), they are able to grasp the intricate greyness of life; they remind us that even our physically tangible universe is too complicated to be put in dumbed down explanations.

Most importantly, they always add corrections and more nuances to the existing knowledge, if the latest peer-reviewed data demand them to; changelessness is not an option.

And I have no issues comprehending that because of what social sciences and humanities taught me: the way to understand life is to not see it as a collection of black-and-white and static boxes, but to acknowledge and appreciate its grey, arbitrary and abstract nature.

I can easily transfer such mindset to STEM… minus the abstract part.

I don’t know how many people out there share this experience of mine.

Maybe they are more common than I am aware of. Maybe they are so rare, they barely exist.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Calculus for arts students

If someone asks you, why non-STEM university students should learn STEM subjects like math and physics, you would probably answer well-roundedness as a benefit. While I do agree well-roundedness is a good thing, there is a problem with that answer: why in universities?

Before they graduated high schools, students had to endure at least twelve years of formal education. That means they had twelve years – twelve goddamn years – to be academically well-rounded. By the time you enroll in universities, you should have the right to specialise.

If those twelve years of formal education fail to breed academically well-rounded individuals, the problem is obviously on the primary and secondary education. Fix the schools, not the universities.

But, if you insist on having “well-rounded” university curricula, you should be mindful about what kind of STEM classes you want students to take.

One thing you should acknowledge: if they lack any interest in STEM or worse, hate them, they wouldn’t learn anything. They wouldn’t see the classes as learning experiences, they would see them as a waste of time, money and resources. Not to mention a source of unnecessary stress.

Therefore, if you want the STEM courses to have an impact on non-STEM students, they have to be immediately applicable to their majors. Social science students can study statistics, philosophy students study mathematical logic and visual arts students study geometry.

And I also want the same thing in reverse.

Instead of forcing STEM students to study ancient philosophy and art history, why don’t we force them to study applicable non-STEM courses? Engineering and computer science students study the history and ethics of technology and medical students study history of medicine and bioethics.

I prefer this approach because students would have much easier time applying the courses to their chosen disciplines. Once they acknowledge the applicability, they will realise any disciplines, including their majors, can be interdisciplinary.

Once they acknowledge the multifaceted nature, they will realise the horizon is far broader than they thought it was. They will realise our approaches to knowledge-seeking and problem-solving shouldn’t be limited to a handful.

Any angles are useful, if you can acknowledge their usefulness.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

AI will destroy the arts… with our help

I am certain you have seen the discourses about AI: one camp believes it will only harm humanity, one camps believes the opposite and one is on the fence. When art AI becomes commercially available, the ensuing discourses still continue the same pattern.

But, days before I started writing this, I noticed a new kind of sentiment.

In a Facebook post that expresses concern about how AI may replace animators, the comment section was quite celebratory. They believe AI will create animated films in significantly more bountiful amounts and they don’t have to wait in order to watch a new one.

The celebratory atmosphere is alarming for two reasons.

First reason, it is consumerism. They don’t care whether they enjoy the films or not. They want to consume them NOT for the sake of being entertained or inspired, but for the sake of consuming.

Personally, I had only seen this behaviour on consumers of physical objects (especially when there are discounts); this is my first time seeing it on consumers of intangible cultural products.

Even the least sophisticated individuals are still picky. While they only consume mainstream and escapist works, they still have preferences. You won’t see them consuming every single film in the market, let alone liking everything they have watched. They certainly don’t consume just for the sake of it; they still want to feel things.

I don’t know if consumerism is an innate desire which technology helps unmasking or it is a desire which technology creates. But, one thing I am certain: technology does not destroy human lives, humans who misuse technology do. Technology destroys because we help.

A second reason why I find the celebration alarming: they seem happy about the prospect of artists losing their livelihoods.

I mean, the post talks about the possibility of art AI replacing artists. If your response to such statement is to gush over the prospect of excessively consuming animated films, it insinuates that you are either unconcerned about artists being jobless or joyful about that; you probably hate artists for being too obsessed with quality over quantity, for not producing enough products.

Maybe, it is less about consumerism and more about fake futurism. You probably believe moving forward is all about embracing new technology, refusing to ponder about their long-term sustainability.

No, you cannot blame me for making such assumptions. When you think a potential problem is something worthy of a celebration, you cannot be angry when someone calls you an idiot, a cunt or both.

Either that or you didn’t pay full attention to. You probably react to the term “art AI” like some feral K-Pop fans react to names of their favourite musicians: once they are mentioned, your brains shut down and the things you worship quickly takeover, replacing your entire personalities.

Not immoral. But, that certainly make idiotic airheads.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

You still need the human aspect

I used to feel inexplicably uneasy every time I watched videos by Wendover Productions. It is one of the channels which topics genuinely intrigue me. But, something always felt off.

Thanks to Alan Fisher, now I know why.

Fisher is another Youtuber whose content shares thematic similarities with Wendover, albeit his is more niche. He criticises Wendover’s videos for being hollow shells. Lots of technical information on the surface, no humanness underneath. That critique explains my uneasiness.

While there aren’t that many, I found comments critical of Fisher’s take, saying they would love science and tech videos free from personal opinions.

I do understand their frustration; they are coming only for the technical information. But, we should not forget one thing about STEM: they were created to benefit mankind. Sooner or later, we have to have discussions about how they affect us.

(Note: the following topics are not something Wendover has discussed in its videos. They are just something I have talked about with other people)

You can explain the differences between metric and imperial measurement systems. But, you also have to acknowledge that a system which conversion simply requires moving the decimal point is significantly more dependable and less likely to cause accidents than a system which requires one conversion formula for every pair of unit. Not to mention that metric is much easier to people who suck in math.

You can explain the technical details of man-made physical environments (e.g. buildings and urban planning) and machinery of different modes of transportation. But, you should also talk about how they affect our physical, financial, social and psychological well-being, both on collective and individual levels.

You can explain the technical details of information technology. But, you should also talk about how to ethically and cautiously utilising it, making sure it improves interconnectivity instead of stoking divisions, spreading misinformation and violating privacy.

You can explain the technical details of GMOs, pharmaceutical products and nuclear energy. But, you should also mention their political and/or corporate misuse, which distract the masses from seeing the actual benefits.

You can elaborate on the latest technological breakthroughs. But, you should discuss whether they are actually beneficial and sustainable in the long run or they are just symptoms of fake futurism which may or may not exacerbate humanity’s existing problems.

You can elaborate on evolution theory. But, you should also talk about the taboo attached to it. Is it because of literal interpretations of the scriptures? Is it because of anthropocentrism? Is it both? Is it because of a reason I have never thought of before?

If we want to know which technical knowledge is the most beneficial, we must take a look at the data. If it is clear, then we must take a stance by choosing the empirically-proven approaches and ditching the ones that aren’t. If the data isn’t clear, then we must have discussions, which inevitably involve lots and lots opinions.

If we want to know how theoretical knowledge affects us, we must observe people’s responses to it. Do they embrace it to widen their horizon? Do they reject it for contradicting their personal beliefs? Do they believe certain knowledge is useless if it does not bring immediate practical benefits?

Why do humans have such varying responses? How can we spread science appreciation to the wider society? How can we convince people to change their beliefs when faced with refuting evidences? How can we convince them that expansing one’s horizon is also an actual benefit?

If you think science communication must convey nothing but technical information, why bother?

Why bother with science communication – which is meant to make the masses appreciate STEM even more – when you disregard its significance in our human lives? Why bother when you could have just written and read textbooks and scientific papers?

It sounds like I absolutely hate Wendover. While I do think most of his videos aren’t that great, there are two which I truly love: The World’s Most Useful Airport and The Final Years of Majuro.

The former is about an airport in an extremely isolated island called St. Helena. It covers the airport’s arduous technical aspects and its impacts on the islanders’ lives. He interviewed the locals, including a couple whose baby received urgent life-saving treatment thanks to the airport.

The latter is about how climate change is threatening to swallow the entirety of Marshall Islands, which means the Marshallese people will lose their ancestral homeland soon. He interviewed them as well, even ones who lived abroad.

They tackle issues which can be solved using STEM and warn us about the consequences of our refusal to solve them. Unless you are a robot or one of those Ayn Rand-esque selfish bastards, hearing the human side of the stories would make you more appreciative of STEM’s existence and more concerned about its use.

The thing is Wendover does not need to travel to a far flung place and interview its residents. If he compliments his STEM content with some dashes of social sciences and humanities and he acknowledges that it is okay to add personal opinions as long as they are well-reasoned and respectful of facts, his other videos would have been much more profound.

.

.

.

.

.

Donate to this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Pros and cons of elitism

*puts on a mask*

Pros:

1. It may ensure power will always be bestowed to individuals who are old, wealthy, blue-blooded and alumni of schools famous for being famous.

2. It may encourage societies to worship individuals simply for possessing said useless qualities.

3. It may create a caste system in where having said qualities will immediately put us on the top.

Cons:

1. It may rob idiotic and ignorant individuals the opportunities to obtain power in their respective societies.

2. It may encourage societies to scorn individuals who possess those said qualities.

3. It may encourage a caste system where having said traits will immediately put us at the bottom.

*takes off the mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

I hate science…

*puts on a mask*

… because it debunks the innate superiority of humans!

I mean, seriously? We would be helpless under nature’s mercy without the help of science? We share the same ancestors with every organism on earth? Earth is not the centre of the universe? We belong to nature, not the other way around? Are you fucking kidding me?

I am religious because I want to feel I belong to the most superiorly divine species in existence! Who cares about spirituality? It is all about the bloating my fragile ego!

Yes, humans are indeed the most dominant earth species. We are the only one that have developed culture, science and technology. We are the only earthlings who have explored the world beyond our planet. But, those are not enough!

We have to believe we are God’s chosen creatures, that everything in the universe revolves around us, that life is conceived solely for our sake!

How can anyone feel dignified by the idea of actually belonging in this earthly realm? How can anyone feel dignified by the idea of being one with nature?

*takes off mask*

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

Sentenced to stupidity

I graduated from senior high school almost eight years ago. At that time (assuming nothing’s changed much), senior high schools in Indonesia were given two pathways by their second year: social sciences (IPS) path and natural sciences (IPA) one. Social sciences students could only study social students at university level. The same applied to natural sciences students, right? Nope.

After high school, IPA students could choose any disciplines they wanted. They were always higher on the formal strata than their social sciences counterparts. The former were always seen as rugged intellectuals who love and were capable of learning everything. The latter were always seen as imbeciles with non-existent ability and love of learning. People had their academic standing degradingly died down and choices unjustly limited, all because what they preferred to study in senior high.

Never mind the pro-caste mentality. This tendency also reinforces falsehood among ourselves. There is no evidence that formally studying natural sciences instantly make us smarter. If truth be told, I have encountered many IPA graduates who are nothing but imbeciles who suffer from severe cases of scientific illiteracy.

There is no shortage of cases where those geniuses make horrendous fallacies. They are proud of their intellectual defect; the zealous protection of beliefs and traditions is worth the annihilation of reason and rejection of knowledge. Biology, physics and chemistry could not save them from such idiocy.

Oh, and they are not even scholarly in the disciplines they always brag about! Instead of being scientifically profound, they wholeheartedly embrace long-disproven pseudosciences. They also think natural sciences are absolutely precise with its wisdom, stagnant and ever-conclusive. The more I properly study them, the more I realise that they can be very intricate and even grey at times. They are not something to be taught solely through soundbites.

I should also tell you that I am an IPS graduate. I chose this path solely because I used to hate natural sciences… or so I thought. Years after graduating, I realised I hated the educational system, not the disciplines. I am an internet addict and a large chunk of my time online is spent on reading online articles and watching documentaries about natural sciences. I study them because I want to learn. Some people study because they want to be ‘smarter’.

Of course, when they think about being ‘smart’, they think of obtainment of high grades, memorisation of formulas and extremely categorical information and absolute obedience of authority figures, including teachers. Never mind lateral thinking. Even the more ‘traditional’ critical thinking is not seen as essential for intelligence. This is what you get when your education is all about rote learning and worshipping the establishment. But, not everyone has the desire to be smarter. Some only fancy the appearance of it.

For them, image is everything and substance is nothing. Any efforts to gain pristine image are halal, no matter how dishonest they are. In this case, that effort is choosing the IPA pathway. Add that with high grades, the most gullible creatures would never know about your true anti-intellectual selves. A splendid persona is worth the deceit. This is what you get when your education is all about embracing undeserved prestige.

Admittedly, I am a horrible student. Even saying that I am average is an overstatement. Laziness, low grades, constant clashes with teachers (even when they were right) and the fact that it took me eight years to get a bachelor’s degree. Only idiots think I am worthy of a scholarship.

But, at the same time, I also love ‘learning’. Not to be confused with ‘studying’, though. The latter is what one does in formal education while the former can be done everywhere at any time. For me, both are mutually exclusive and are not related to each other in any way.

In spite of my hatred of studying, I still find myself morbidly curious. Not only I constantly ponder about how life works, I also read a lot about it; I even read papers published by actual peer-reviewed journals (assuming I can get hold of them without draining my pocket). Then, not satisfied with rote learning alone, I also make my own half-baked conclusions using the knowledge I have.

They are half-baked because, with the arrival of more knowledge, they will be replaced with better ones. I encourage myself to be open to the prospect of being proven wrong, no matter how ‘hurtful’ it can be. I have experienced that many times in the past and I will certainly experience it again in the future.

When it comes my interests, they are quite extensive. Primarily, I am into languages, foods, culture, arts, politics, history and media. In spite of their mostly intangible nature, we owe ourselves to them. Alongside their practical benefits, they are also affirmers of our identities as human beings. Our relationships with them show our human essence, both on individual and societal levels. But, as luring as they get, I am not drawn only to the intangible.

Even though they are not as strong, my interests also extend to natural sciences, particularly evolutionary biology, geography and astronomy, and applied sciences like medicine (can’t explain this). I am intrigued by the workings of our tangible world, how it can be utilised for our survival as a species and how our understanding of it affects the way we see ourselves as earthlings. With the right outlooks, one can gain wisdom from the tangible and the intangible.

As you can read from my writing, I am still heavily flawed. I am pretentious, self-righteous and I also cannot help myself from rushing to conclusions. But, every time I encounter any of those Indonesians who ‘love’ natural sciences for shamelessly superficial reasons, I always feel better about myself. At least I am actually learning. At least my sense of wonder is sincere.

No, I am not saying there are no intelligent IPA graduates with heartfelt inquisitiveness. They do exist. But, they find learning more appealing than boasting. Boasting is a sign of insecurity, not self-assurance. Besides, how can you learn anything if you spend too much embracing vanity?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Support this deadbeat, preachy blogger on Patreon.

What? 2

I don’t know why. But, I don’t always enjoy shopping for groceries, even though I love to eat. Not to mention that my mind used to be plagued unnerving thoughts while shopping.

At the ‘fresh’ fruit and vegetable sections (In urban Indonesia, fresh produce is not bountiful), I often looked at certain vegetables and thought, ‘there are people who use these as sex toys!’. I don’t know why I had that thought in the first place, considering food sex is not a kink of mine and I hate wasting food.

At the fruit, vegetable and frozen meat sections, I often looked at the produces and thought, ‘I could people with these. I could use them to beat people to death with this!’. This violent thought lingered a lot longer.

One hour and forty-five minutes later.

My mind loves to go everywhere. Instead of thinking about continuing the previous paragraph properly, I prefer to focus on the music I am listening right now (John Adams’ Short Ride in a Fast Machine) and to smell the food someone is cooking right now (flour-coated deep fried shrimps and stir-fried broccoli and carrot).

God, now I am distracted again because I am listening to the orchestral rendition of a musical composition written by a Brazilian.

Three days later.

I love to let myself distracted by everything. Foods, music, Youtube videos, life in general. Maybe it’s ADD, maybe it’s Maybelline. I try my best to not be distracted…… and that’s why I am playing an MP4 video right now on my computer instead of typing. Slow claps for me.

I have to pause it now. The video is an almost two-hour-long PBS documentary about Darwin’s evolution theory. It talked about how even Darwin himself didn’t know how evolution happened. But, he knew it happened based on his observations about the physical world, which in this case were the finches on Easter islands.

I hate how people use the word ‘theory’. A theory is not a guess. A theory is something that we come up after the research, not before. A theory is something that can be supported by further researches. When people think about theory, they actually think about hypothesis. Wait, no. Even a hypothesis should be followed by research. It sets off the research; it is not the ending. So, when people think about theory, they actually think about mindless guessing.

As annoying as it is, this ain’t surprising. People love to think scientists are professional guessers because they are projecting. They love to make mindless guesses in their daily lives. To justify that flaw of theirs, they accuse scientists, the so-called educated people, of doing the same. They want to feel good about their horrendeously imperfect selves.

I hate it when people romanticise each other. When certain public figures become more famous because of their good deeds, we love to make Gods out of them. It is unthinkable that they can commit any sins. In fact, we will guilt trip anyone who don’t follow those celebrities’ footsteps, anyone who refuse to admire them. This is reflected in our pop culture.

More of than not, you will encounter lots of highly-moral protagonists, so moral that they are unrealistic. The more critical-minded among us will be repulsed by such unnaturally perfect beings. The villains and anti-heros are more real. Apart from their flaws, they also possess positive traits that can be useful for the good guys.

Traits like the ability to see the shades of grey in life. The villains and anti-heros often have more nuanced outlooks. Not only they are more real, they are more competent! Like it or not, that is why those dark characters can still have large fandoms, sometimes bigger than the ones for the good guys.

STEM vs. Humanities

Why “versus”? Why not STEM and Humanities? What makes us think we only need one? We need both.

STEM provide us the proper outlook to observe our material world. Humanities provide us the proper outlook to to observe the abstract one. STEM issue us the manuals for assembling instruments that ease and strengthen our lives. Humanities guide us in solving complex societal issues. But, not only we need them, they also need each other.

STEM need Humanities for ethical guidance, inspiring societal interest, understanding their purposes, their roles in societies and their own history. Humanities need STEM as a source of self-improvement, debunking wobbly theories. Humanities also need the technologies which can document and circulate the knowledge. STEM and Humanities are yin and yang.

They lay out two distinctive but equally well-reasoned outlooks on life. Whether we pick both, either one or neither, it is up to us. I am going to sound pretentious here. But, if we thrive to grasp our life better (which we should), it is sensible to pick both. Picking one is like flying with one wing. Picking neither is like flying with no wings.