Cognition

From day one, everyone can only interpret the world around them. This eventually causes us to conclude on said interpretations based on our own personal experiences.

It's such a naïve pit to fall into.

The difference between a theory and a law lies in the fact that a law describes what happens, and a theory describes a possible interpretation or explanation as to why an event happens. Theories generated in a split second based off of what little evidence exists cannot be used for a conclusion. So why do people assert things without bothering to look at evidence that immediately contradicts their conclusion?

The machinations of the world that you're interpreting are not prescriptive; you don't "assign meaning" after the fact. Everything you see around you can only be described as descriptive. And being exposed to people who continually make assertions based off of empirical evidence and personal laziness is becoming toxic to me.

And it is highly disappointing when I watch it occur to people who are much more competent than I, despite evidence explicitly disproving their statements.

Events have to make sense by default. Should said events not have been possible, they would have never happened. Everything happens for a reason, no matter how complicated or "unlikely" the catalysts actually happen to be. Our tasks is to determine why.

And that answer has nothing to do with a personal ego or opinion.