Dr. Philip Goff, Will Academia Get Beyond Materialism? |409|

Does/Is and Is/Does
Ritual is the Does, that helps to read the Is?
Materialist science requires/will only observe the Is, which it refutes, and construes the Does by sciebam?
And the orphan question and sciebam reinforce each other in an endless loop!
Close and correct... this is my shot a packaging a complex issue inside easy language, without compromising the information it contains (Bridgman Reduction).

It comes from the statement, by multiple science philosophers: "One does not have to framework what something is, in order to study what it does." I am trying to find who is credited with that original idea... no success just yet.

Sciebam and orphan questions are indeed a self-reinforcing cycle which obsesses about the 'is' and thereafter dispositions 'does' so that it can only support that 'is' which was assumed walking in the door - until a Kuhn-Planck paradigm shift occurs.

Fake skeptics are telling us 'Here is how science works' - and we keep falling for this trick of prevarication. This is elicited by Nassim Taleb in Incerto as the Manager's Error:

Manager’s Error – from Nassim Taleb’s tome Fooled by Randomness (2001). The principle of forcing an argument into an artificial binary or bifurcated outcome set, examining only that which is a priori deemed to be the more probable or simple outcome, and not that choice which can serve to produce the largest net effect or ‘payoff’. Only researching the most likely, framework compliant or simple alternative, will only serve to confirm what we already know, and bears a much lower payoff in terms of information which might be garnered through a black swan, less likely or ‘complex’ alternative turning out to bear any form of credence or final veracity.​
And finally in McCulloch's Axiom:
McCulloch's Axiom - it is often possible to extrapolate the truth solely from what is banned. Named for physicist Mike McCulloch, key proponent of QI theory alternatives to Dark Matter.​
 
Last edited:
The conventional modern diet contains both these foods in excess, as salt is often added to counteract 'inappropriate' sweetness, so the body vacillates wildly in an effort to achieve equilibrium.
It is worth getting a balanced picture of salt, and saturated fat. Both seem to have been demonised - possibly because of a scientific error that became too embarrassing to correct. Here is a different view about salt:


Excess sugar should definitely be avoided.

David
 
OK,

1) The diagram consisting of 6 cubes, doesn't seem to correspond to the text on the left - it is not clear what most of the uppercase letters mean.

2) This text utterly defeated me:
Equivocally, these elements are all somewhat correct; however none of the five elements listed above constitute logical truths of science nor philosophy. They are only correct under certain stipulations. The problem resides in that this renders these elements not useful, and at worst destructive in terms of the actual goals of science. They do not bear utility in discerning when fully structured hypothesis is in play, or some reduced set thereof. Scope is functionally moot at the point of hypothesis, because in the structure of Intelligence, the domain of observation has already been established – it had to have been established, otherwise you could not develop the hypothesis from any form of intelligence to begin with.
I remember a science fiction story in which people received a message from space, and those that were intelligent enough to understand it found their brains entered a recursive loop and they could not recover. I can't decide if this is relevant or not

David
 
OK,

1) The diagram consisting of 6 cubes, doesn't seem to correspond to the text on the left - it is not clear what most of the uppercase letters mean.

2) This text utterly defeated me:

I remember a science fiction story in which people received a message from space, and those that were intelligent enough to understand it found their brains entered a recursive loop and they could not recover. I can't decide if this is relevant or not
Yeah, if one takes the paragraph you cited out of its context of reference - and poses it in isolation, well then confusion is going to result. As would happen with any phrase extracted randomly from a coherent passage.

The passage correctly extracted, reads:

Wikipedia cites the elements of hypothesis in terms of the below five features, as defined by philosophers Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn: (Reference: Schick, Theodore; Vaughn, Lewis (2002). How to think about weird things: critical thinking for a New Age. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN0-7674-2048-9)
  • Testability (involving falsifiability)
  • Parsimony (as in the application of “Occam’s razor” (sic), discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
  • Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
  • Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
  • Conservatism – the degree of “fit” with existing recognized knowledge-systems.
Equivocally, these elements are all somewhat correct; however none of the five elements listed above constitute logical truths of science nor philosophy. They are only correct under certain stipulations. The problem resides in that this renders these elements not useful, and at worst destructive in terms of the actual goals of science. They do not bear utility in discerning when fully structured hypothesis is in play, or some reduced set thereof.

It is precisely worded as the thesis introduction of the entire article - which you must read in order to understand the Wordpress blog image (the six blocks) as well as why these consensus five features constitute weak philosophy.
 
Last edited:
If by academia we mean established science, though be it presently under question, it will not likely get past materialism. Since utterable alturnatives are sparse a seeking individual might revisit what Christianity offers; this being, our present occupation of a stepping stone, hard, but temporary reality. Helpful Spirits are waiting in excited anticipation for our successful graduation! ~garry
 
Yeah, if one takes the paragraph you cited out of its context of reference - and poses it in isolation, well then confusion is going to result. As would happen with any phrase extracted randomly from a coherent passage.

The passage correctly extracted, reads:

Wikipedia cites the elements of hypothesis in terms of the below five features, as defined by philosophers Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn: (Reference: Schick, Theodore; Vaughn, Lewis (2002). How to think about weird things: critical thinking for a New Age. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN0-7674-2048-9)
  • Testability (involving falsifiability)
  • Parsimony (as in the application of “Occam’s razor” (sic), discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
  • Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
  • Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
  • Conservatism – the degree of “fit” with existing recognized knowledge-systems.
Equivocally, these elements are all somewhat correct; however none of the five elements listed above constitute logical truths of science nor philosophy. They are only correct under certain stipulations. The problem resides in that this renders these elements not useful, and at worst destructive in terms of the actual goals of science. They do not bear utility in discerning when fully structured hypothesis is in play, or some reduced set thereof.

It is precisely worded as the thesis introduction of the entire article - which you must read in order to understand the Wordpress blog image (the six blocks) as well as why these consensus five features constitute weak philosophy.
Yes but surely we aren't dealing with a problem that is so complex that it can't be stated in a more accessible way than this. I am a great beleiver in dealing with subjects in as down to earth way as possible.

I think it would be nice to have a clear way to identify the distorted hypotheses and conclusions of so much of modern science, but since it would seem that academia does not use the labors of Schick and Vaughn to police its work, it doesn't seem like a good place to start.

To me, there are a small number of key problems

1) A fanatical insistence that consciousness doesn't really exist - in anything - even though it seems to exist in humans and many animals. That belief drives a lot of nonsense in science.

2) The creation of a science hierarchy, in which those at the top can control what the underlings say or write.

3) The coupling of science to money, which produces finience (meant as a joke, so please don't start to use the term!) - which is good for very little, but pretends to be doing excellent science in partnereship with industry.

4) An extreme reluctance to admit serious mistakes, particularly when money is involved. This is probably linked to item 2 and 3, because the 'leaders' like all their underlings to sing from one hymn sheet, particularly when there are important contracts at stake. (Watch the Jason Fung video I posted above for an example of this!).

5) The demise of really knowledgeable science correspondents.

I know this isn't exactly the question you were answering, but hypotheses only even make sense if science actually has the goal of getting to the truth. Every one of the above drives science in directions that have less and less to do with discovering truth.

David
 
It is worth getting a balanced picture of salt, and saturated fat. Both seem to have been demonised
I don't advocate a reduction of salt which we need, as we do fat. But an excess of salt leads to a craving for sugar, and vice versa. This creates an unstable metabolism, which correlates with (my theory of) a diet of extremes causing an unstable psychological state.
 
Last edited:
this is my shot a packaging a complex issue inside easy language, without compromising the information it contains
I love the term 'orphan question' it is visual. An idea that lacks the 'parenting' of intelligent preparation (shortened for purpose of remembering) My dictionary and head has had a workout since joining Skeptiko.
Fake skeptics are telling us 'Here is how science works' - and we keep falling for this trick of prevarication.
I had thought that new concepts require a new paradigm but I see why you call it a trap, getting caught in proving the validity of a new paradigm within the old.
 
Yes but surely we aren't dealing with a problem that is so complex that it can't be stated in a more accessible way than this. I am a great beleiver in dealing with subjects in as down to earth way as possible.

I think it would be nice to have a clear way to identify the distorted hypotheses and conclusions of so much of modern science, but since it would seem that academia does not use the labors of Schick and Vaughn to police its work, it doesn't seem like a good place to start.

To me, there are a small number of key problems

1) A fanatical insistence that consciousness doesn't really exist - in anything - even though it seems to exist in humans and many animals. That belief drives a lot of nonsense in science.

2) The creation of a science hierarchy, in which those at the top can control what the underlings say or write.

3) The coupling of science to money, which produces finience (meant as a joke, so please don't start to use the term!) - which is good for very little, but pretends to be doing excellent science in partnereship with industry.

4) An extreme reluctance to admit serious mistakes, particularly when money is involved. This is probably linked to item 2 and 3, because the 'leaders' like all their underlings to sing from one hymn sheet, particularly when there are important contracts at stake. (Watch the Jason Fung video I posted above for an example of this!).

5) The demise of really knowledgeable science correspondents.

I know this isn't exactly the question you were answering, but hypotheses only even make sense if science actually has the goal of getting to the truth. Every one of the above drives science in directions that have less and less to do with discovering truth.

David
All totally valid as life missions David. I touch on some of this in my blog; however, in order to provide credible thesis on such social conclusions, I must cite real world case examples. #2, 3, 4 and 5 all could get me sued for defamation if I professionally pursued case examples of such things. And in absence of sound case examples... who is gonna listen? We have tons of people saying 'science is screwed up' in vacuous opinion pieces.

So I was indeed faced with the question - write like everyone else? ... or do something different - more impactful? Write shallow pablum for immediate acclaim and acceptance - or write something which will be lauded 100 years from now? I chose the latter in each case.

I am not writing for the lay public, nor to push specific conclusions, nor to change the mind of the already brainwashed. I am writing to change the philosophical playing field in the mind of the young scientific student; who is just beginning their 'career' in science - vulnerable to being taught flawed philosophy from amateur and celebrity sources (fake skeptics and 'critical thinkers'). A number of hits on my site are directed by college and high school teachers. I can see the instructor hit my site, followed then by 20 or so students. This is far more important to me than writing for social acceptance or a magazine level acumen.

So my mission is different - but allied with the mission of Skeptiko. If we are to win, in regard to the valid issues you raise, then we must (re-)train our science professionals as to what is indeed true skepticism. From AP Chemistry, Physics and English, through a rigorous undergraduate school and all the way through grad school - despite taking 6 courses in probability and statistics, 3 in hypothesis formulation and reduction, 9 in calculus and several in modeling and simulation - I never once heard the word 'inference' used in an accurate professional context, never was taught what a scientific hypothesis was (only a Bayesian one), and was never taught how to effect a study design to align with the type of inference demanded by an observation domain.

Scientists are not taught adequate philosophy of science during their development track, nor do they learn it inside their career to a great degree. They are forced to read Plato's Republic and the Allegory of the Cave, and then memorize the writings of Bacon and Hume, and yawn their way through that course - not knowing that this shortfall in education ultimately renders them vulnerable to faking their way through their career. Substituting the accoutrements of science (p-values, polynomial regressions and Gaussian distribution models) in place of competence in development of soundness and logical calculus, or ability to discern the probative value of an investigation series. Almost like they are putting on an act.

Millions of people are harmed by the product they produced, but the p-values looked good - they complied with the corporate rubric which they were instructed to follow. They were good students. The journalistic profession lauds them as beautifully dressed, whilst they parade about in their invisible garments of virtue.

And in my determination, this act is from whence originate all the problems of which you lament above. Scientists do not know philosophy, nor are they trained in the philosophy of science, skepticism. Like brick layers who bear not the first inkling of what a home is... they craft for us gigantic edifices of fecklessness. A display in bricks.

And we as the people who must live inside these homes, we complain about it and critique the building style, yet bear no idea as to what served to precipitate their mis-design in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Millions of people are harmed by the product they produced, but the p-values looked good - they complied with the corporate rubric which they were instructed to follow. They were good students. The journalistic profession lauds them as beautifully dressed, whilst they parade about in their invisible garments of virtue.
Why Inference and The Elements of Hypothesis are of Extraordinary Importance

And by the way, today's $2 billion award against Bayer/Monsanto is a prime example of a corporation who exploited scientists who are poorly trained in philosophy, domain, soundness, logical calculus, types and modes of inference - who cost Americans their health and many people their lives...

The price of pretend science... The price of our 'skeptics' chasing UFO's, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster

...when, if they were so smart - they should have been challenging the 'science' which Monsanto was publishing. Even as friends saying "Monsanto, we love you as a company, but linear induction conducted by former employees in retirement, publishing one-and-done studies, is NOT sound basis for a dismissal of the precautionary principle; especially when it regards something everyone consumes four times per day for their LIFE. That requires solid plenary deductive work and NOT political one-liners."

I, along with others, have warned about this coming for over a decade now. We tried to head this off and offer a new view/ethic of this market to Monsanto years ago. They chuckled in their arrogance. Science to them was about power, profit, hiring nasty fake skeptics, political allies and enemies - and not on the prosecution of the subject at hand.

Big Mistake - not something I am celebrating either.

More bastions of pretend science are going to fall in the coming years. And this will include Oppressive Nihilistic Materialism as well.
 
Last edited:
Do we believe what we want to believe? Could it be that a truly confirmed materialist doesn't want there to be any meaning. No amount of logic or proof makes the slightest dent.

And, could it be that the reason for denying 'spirit' or meaning is that it does not exist for them? Are there already AI beings among us? Cylons anyone....?
 
Do we believe what we want to believe? Could it be that a truly confirmed materialist doesn't want there to be any meaning. No amount of logic or proof makes the slightest dent.

And, could it be that the reason for denying 'spirit' or meaning is that it does not exist for them? Are there already AI beings among us? Cylons anyone....?

Materialism provides comfort to those who might look forward to the end of suffering at death or who might be afraid of punishment in the afterlife.

The physical world exists so that spirits can have experiences that cannot be had in the spirit realms. Being a materialist is one such experience.
 
Last edited:
All totally valid as life missions David. I touch on some of this in my blog; however, in order to provide credible thesis on such social conclusions, I must cite real world case examples. #2, 3, 4 and 5 all could get me sued for defamation if I professionally pursued case examples of such things. And in absence of sound case examples... who is gonna listen? We have tons of people saying 'science is screwed up' in vacuous opinion pieces.
Well I think the cumulative weight of those vacuous opinion pieces are adding up. From time to time The Daily Mail publishes health articles, and the comments reflect people's increasing disrespect for science. Scientists only get to earn a living if people trust them. I think the science establishment is starting to get rattled.
So I was indeed faced with the question - write like everyone else? ... or do something different - more impactful? Write shallow pablum for immediate acclaim and acceptance - or write something which will be lauded 100 years from now? I chose the latter in each case.

I am not writing for the lay public, nor to push specific conclusions, nor to change the mind of the already brainwashed. I am writing to change the philosophical playing field in the mind of the young scientific student; who is just beginning their 'career' in science - vulnerable to being taught flawed philosophy from amateur and celebrity sources (fake skeptics and 'critical thinkers'). A number of hits on my site are directed by college and high school teachers. I can see the instructor hit my site, followed then by 20 or so students. This is far more important to me than writing for social acceptance or a magazine level acumen.
OK - but people learn and forget a great deal of stuff in school. The problem is, a lot of your specialised terminology either doesn't GOOGLE, or GOOGLE just reports a Latin root.
Scientists are not taught adequate philosophy of science during their development track, nor do they learn it inside their career to a great degree. They are forced to read Plato's Republic and the Allegory of the Cave, and then memorize the writings of Bacon and Hume, and yawn their way through that course - not knowing that this shortfall in education ultimately renders them vulnerable to faking their way through their career. Substituting the accoutrements of science (p-values, polynomial regressions and Gaussian distribution models) in place of competence in development of soundness and logical calculus, or ability to discern the probative value of an investigation series. Almost like they are putting on an act.
I still think that if they were motivated to discover the TRUTH, that would be the cure for a lot of this problem. Let us say that a scientist takes many samples of water (or foodstuffs) and tests for 100 different chemicals, and tries to match these with 100 different diseases in some way. As we both know if you look for 'harmful' interactions, accepting a p=0.05 threshold for a result, you will get huge numbers of false positives. I strongly suspect that many of the associations between trace chemicals and cancer are generated in that way. However, if their focus is on getting at the TRUTH, they may start to realise there is something wrong with their methodology all by themselves - just empirically. If all they care about is another paper, they won't. Glyphosate is an extremely simple chemical, and it was chosen because it doesn't last long in the soil. Paradoxically, I'd tend to side with Monsanto (rather reluctantly) on this issue, because I suspect a lot of the industry of searching for residues of this and that in the environment, is itself a manifestation of broken science - plus the fact that chemicals can be detected now and extraordinarily low concentrations. Of course, spraying almost any chemical seems a bad choice, however harmless you may think it to be. You can buy spray solutions of sodium hypochlorite, but I wouldn't like to be in the shoes (or should I say lungs!) of someone who used that on a regular basis!

This problem is probably exacerbated by the fact that tests performed by commercial labs are expensive, and research students probably need their supervisors to sign off on orders for such tests to be done. Thus many obvious precautions are probably never taken. For example, it might be worth sending some samples of distilled water, to see what levels of potentially noxious chemicals are found in it. It might be worth diluting a solution of some pollutant to ever greater dilutions, to see if the answers that come back correspond reasonably well. Of course you could rely on the test service's claimed error bars. I know someone who was advising a student (not his own) on how to resolve some problems in her data. He got her to run several samples of the same solution through the testing service, and when her results arrived, she came back in tears because the testing error was much greater than the claimed value! This wiped out her PhD data, so he advised her to pretend she had never asked for help, and submit her PhD as planned!

I am profoundly suspicious of the idea that levels of chemicals at the picogram level are dangerous to humans or animals. I mean, how many chemicals must one encounter during a walk through any streets - particularly the streets close to research labs - if you treat arbitrarily low concentrations as dangerous, we would all be dead many times over.

Personally I'd focus on the pharmaceutical industry as the source of most harm - they persuade us to put far higher concentrations of chemicals into our bodies. If that is done to cure a serious illness, then it may be justified, but too many well people end up stuffed with pharmaceuticals.

David
 
Last edited:
Do we believe what we want to believe? Could it be that a truly confirmed materialist doesn't want there to be any meaning. No amount of logic or proof makes the slightest dent.

And, could it be that the reason for denying 'spirit' or meaning is that it does not exist for them? Are there already AI beings among us? Cylons anyone....?
In my experience, some folks who are raised in specific religions may end up feeling duped and/or humiliated when they later move away from strict teachings like biblical literalism, for example. They may swing from fundamentalism to atheism, and they may end up "hardening their heart" against any other form of spiritual belief so that they don't end up feeling duped or humiliated again.

The same thing can happen to people who find spirituality or religion later in life and for a while they feel really great and awesome about it. A person who has an addiction problem may join a 12-step program, for example. Developing some belief in a higher power is a strong component of the 12-steps. So this person may pick up some spiritual or religious beliefs, and start to feel like they're finally getting a handle on their problems, and isn't this wonderful? They may start to take their spiritual/religious beliefs very seriously and start telling everyone they know how wonderful it is. And then months or years later, they go back to their addiction and all their problems are back, and it turns out their spirituality/religion wasn't the cure for all their problems after all, and they may again feel duped, embarrassed, or humiliated that they ever thought that was going to work in the first place. So they slide back to atheism again. And again, their heart is hardened against spiritual beliefs.

I think a lot of people turn away from spiritual/religious beliefs for strongly emotional reasons, though oftentimes perhaps they don't acknowledge that about themselves or certainly would never bring it up in conversation. So "logic and proof" aren't going to be particularly effective in persuading them to "come back to the fold."
 
Last edited:
OK - but people learn and forget a great deal of stuff in school. The problem is, a lot of your specialised terminology either doesn't GOOGLE, or GOOGLE just reports a Latin root.
This is not a criticism, but rather a compliment. The term SHOULD direct to a Latin or Greek or German root (I employ all three as a nod to which philosopher-culture affected that term's base thinking the most). The concept the term represents ALREADY exists - I for some reason, appear to sometimes be the first one who identifies the condition of necessity for the term. Finally, when I create a new term I EXPLAIN and DEFINE it in the body of the article itself. Is there an application to Webster's that I need to fill out for such a thing?

If you want a short outline of why and when a new term is important, you can see here: Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism

The whole idea - is that we are MISSING critical elements of philosophy which are helping foster these scientific shortfalls in the first place. That was the whole point of my last post.

Truth can never be discerned, if we do not possess the tools to get to it. Even worse, we reside in a state of cultivated ignorance because of the margin of people who desire that state of mankind.

This is why this important if we are to dismantle oppressive nihilism. :) I consider this an important frontier for mankind. I believe that Alex is doing one of the best jobs at hitting the heart of the matter. And that is why I am here.
 
Last edited:
This is not a criticism, but rather a compliment. The term SHOULD direct to a Latin or Greek or German root (I employ all three as a nod to which philosopher-culture affected that term's base thinking the most). The concept the term represents ALREADY exists - I for some reason, appear to sometimes be the first one who identifies the condition of necessity for the term. Finally, when I create a new term I EXPLAIN and DEFINE it in the body of the article itself.

Is there an application to Webster's that I need to fill out in order to satisfy your concern here?

If you want a short outline of why and when a new term is important, you can see here: Gaming the Lexicology of Ideas through Neologism

The whole idea - is that we are MISSING critical elements of philosophy which are helping foster these scientific shortfalls in the first place. That was the whole point of my last post.
Well I suppose the main point of my post was that unless those doing the research actually intend to extract the TRUTH, everything else becomes irrelevant.

David
 
Personally I'd focus on the pharmaceutical industry as the source of most harm - they persuade us to put far higher concentrations of chemicals into our bodies. If that is done to cure a serious illness, then it may be justified, but too many well people end up stuffed with pharmaceuticals.
Hear hear!

Indeed... Six Vaccinial Generation Trends Fueled by Concealed Profits

Re: Glyphosate and Vaccines...

Induction and Deduction to the various forms of modus ____________ are one set of inference playing-field inside science. However, once one introduces the concept of Risk, especially chronic or broadly exposed Risk... The entire landscape of inference (The Map of Inference) changes.

Risk does not care how smart you are, what your good intentions are, nor what you know or have found out through inductive study. It requires that you actually FALSIFY its reach. Anything short of this is pretend science. This is part of what I do professionally, with markets, trade and technology.
 
Last edited:
In my experience, some folks who are raised in specific religions may end up feeling duped and/or humiliated when they later move away from strict teachings like biblical literalism, for example. They may swing from fundamentalism to atheism, and they may end up "hardening their heart" against any other form of spiritual belief so that they don't end up feeling duped or humiliated again.

The same thing can happen to people who find spirituality or religion later in life and for a while they feel really great and awesome about it. A person who has an addiction problem may join a 12-step program, for example. Developing some belief in a higher power is a strong component of the 12-steps. So this person may pick up some spiritual or religious beliefs, and start to feel like they're finally getting a handle on their problems, and isn't this wonderful? They may start to take their spiritual/religious beliefs very seriously and start telling everyone they know how wonderful it is. And then months or years later, they go back to their addiction and all their problems are back, and it turns out their spirituality/religion wasn't the cure for all their problems after all, and they may again feel duped, embarrassed, or humiliated that they ever thought that was going to work in the first place. So they slide back to atheism again. And again, their heart is hardened against spiritual beliefs.

I think a lot of people turn away from spiritual/religious beliefs for strongly emotional reasons, though oftentimes perhaps they don't acknowledge that about themselves or certainly would never bring it up in conversation. So "logic and proof" aren't going to be particularly effective in persuading them to "come back to the fold."
But if you substitute the word 'science' for each use of the words 'spiritual/religious' your logic still applies.
So I think you are saying that we all want a belief system to cling to. That to me is illogical, and it often takes the passage of time to discover this. Everything is a belief system and logic and proof are no more near it than spirituality/religion. We're never going to understand this ineffable thing unless we stop trying to find, define or prove it, and begin to use our intuition as a means of reading its truths.

Emotional manifestations show where our beliefs, needs and desires lie. They should be a gateway to understanding, not a reason for choosing/reverting to another belief system.
The attention to conflicting external opposites keeps us distracted from what is found within.
Or perhaps people enjoy 'being sheep'
 
Top