Universally people will behave as I suggested. Universally the consequences will

Universally people will behave as I suggested.
Universally the consequences will result as I suggested.
That’s empirical science.
Universally people will demonstrate utility in the application of that science without understanding what they’re doing precisely because their behavior is limited by that science.
The science remains (first cause), peoples demonstrate behavioral variation from it (good-utility), individuals demonstrate behavioral variation from it (preference-utility).
There is no exit from this logic any more than there is from entropy.
If you want to do philosophy (utility of a good) within a science (description of existence) then that’s fine – but it’s philosophy(choice) not science (decidability).
I do science and decidability and leave open the choice of philosophy.
If you want to o philosophy instead then do so but don’t criticize the science you operate under or you’re just lying like everyone else.
I am fully aware that I will likely lose this attempt to persuade you because of the dominance of your incentives given your country and circumstances are of more urgent utility in achieving your desired ends than the science is in mine.
That’s fine. It has no bearing on me what I say or my work other than to confirm everything I argue.
I’m just disturbed by your attempt to conflate a philosophical preference or utility as having any bearing on the science. And I’m resisting your attempt to ‘capture’ terms and meaning like the left does to suit the preferences and utility in your philosophy and it’s application to your polity.
So from my understanding you are practicing the libertarian attempt (middle class leftism), cultural marxism, and postmodernism(credentialist marxism), shared by all the abrahamic cults, to manipulate language such that it suits your preferences, rather than to constrain language to measurements that are free of such biases and deceptions.
As I have said repeatedly I respect your attempt to produce a continental small-country application of the work (a philosophy) even if it is often a cost I must bear while you continue to evolve in sophisticated.
While I recognize (as in the OP of this thread) people cannot separate my work on the science for my prescriptions for the anglosphere becaues tehre is so little divergence, that is different from your accusation that I myself don’t know the difference between the science and its application.
You could quite easily base your preferences on the science by creating a philosophy (applied science) rather than try to capture the science or my anglosphere recommendations for your use like the left does by claiming it’s a primacy rather than a derivation.

Hugs
CD

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS