uncertainty principle

My riposte to that would be that "social forces" as you put them are just constructs of decision making as a result of classical conditioning, human biology and natural selection. I would argue that at the point where humans or animals start to interact with each other, in packs, civilisations or other more simple constructs some sort of "social force" is required- if none exists the relationship breaks thus there is no relationship. I would also argue that our particular permutation of social law has evolved in a similar way to natural selection hence branches and different codes of law in different regions of the world. Finally i argue that concepts such as responsiblity and guilt are not intrinsically linked to humanity, which is why if you dont teach a child how to function in society it doesnt know how to and imo is also the explanation behind the phenomina of desensitization, guilt is not intrinsically linked to us so when we get used to seing the child on the oxfam advert, we dont care any more.

Good riposte for a sixth former ! You will eventually be able to discriminate between "science" and "pseudo-science" which much of psychology falls into. (I speak as a psychology graduate). You may also begin to understand why many writers argue that concepts of "self" are socially acquired which implies a "top-down" approach rather than the "bottom -up" one of reductionism.

But all that may involve a lot of reading and thinking. And it may serve you well to bear in mind Niels Bohr's celebrated comment to a co-worker regarding the then frontiers of science "No, no ! You are not thinking...You are just being logical !"

Advice for college students...