Couldn't be easier Hope, I base my confidence on tried and tested systems that keep progressing toward more and more tried and tested evidence, I can't remember hearing anything about revealed science or anything equally as silly and pointless as revelation science.
And which are often shown to be erroneous - either because of human error or because of human lack of understanding. It is amazing how many processes that have been part and parcel of life over the years - despite being queried and challenged by many people (including non-scientists and other 'ordinary' people) are only now being looked at by scientists who have realised the truth of these challenges.
The question is how do you or anyone else justify a heriditary system as fair play for all, Thomas Paine made a good assesment of this royals anarchism when he said, "why don't we have heriditary mathematicians".
Whilst I'm not a monarchist, I'm not a republican. After all, we often do have a form of hereditary-ness in that children will often follow in the footsteps of their parents - be that in things they volunteer for, work as or even support in other ways.
However, my main concern with some republican approaches is that the electoral system often stymies democracy as opposed to improving it. For instance, my experience of American politics is that progress in vital areas - such as healthcare and gun control is all too often stalled by the intervention of powerful - and often undemocratic - lobbying groups, and/or the way in which Presidents and the Senate/Congress ften cancel each other out meaning that something that gets through Congress often doesn't get through the Senate.
Whilst I've never actually researched this, I suspect that this system has killed off more legisative business than our unelected House of Lords has ever done, which more often than not improves, rather than kills off, legislation.
Having said that about the so called royals, none of that opinion of mine campares with your total blindness or refusal to let yourself see the error in your N P F question you keep putting out on the forum, surly you must realise how daft it makes you look, I'm certain you're not that daft, so what is it? Why?
As I mentioned to Gordon, I've known about the NPF for far longer than I've been a member of this board, and I have a pretty good understanding of what it means.
The reason I "keep putting" what you call the N P F question out on the forum is that you and others regularly make statements here. Statements are, by their very nature, meant to be authoritative and factual - yet often these statements are neither authoritative or factual. They are often based on personal and sometimes organisational opinion.
For instance, the assumption by many here that only ideas and concepts that can be proven by scientific investigation are valid. Do you actually have any evidence that that is the case? If you have, perhaps you could provide that evidence since no-one has ever managed to do so in all the years that I and others I know hae asked that question. Do you have any evidence to show that only science can answer the questions and problems humanity faces?
