Getting Rich is an Exact Science [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
It's like if Bill Nye was on G4. "The Way Games Work" is a new series by the Clan of the Gray Wolf that explores the science behind various gaming technologies and makes it accessible to the layman. In this episode, Roo explains in depth the technology behind the highly anticipated Nintendo 3DS - and also uncovers how other 3D methodologies work along the way. All while slipping a picture of Christina Hendricks and a potshot at Avatar. What more could you want? To see more of our content, visit www.clanofthegraywolf.com
This is the second in a series of articles based on the teachings found in the success classic "The Science of Getting Rich", written in 1910 by Wallace D. Wattles. This book-now in the public domain--is essential reading for anyone who wants to become wealthy.
In the second chapter of "The Science of Getting Rich", Mr. Wattles explains that getting rich is a science; in fact, it's an exact science, like mathematics. That is, there's a series of principles or laws that govern the process of acquiring wealth, and once these are learned and systematically applied by anyone, that person will get rich.
Mr. Wattles refers to the systematic application of the principles or laws of becoming rich as "doing things in a certain way". He adds that once a person begins to think and act in "a certain way", that person will become rich. The "certain way" in which to think and act is fully explained in later chapters of the book.
The first law Mr. Wattles cites is t he Law of Cause and Effect, which states that like causes always produce like effects. If you swing your golf club in the same manner as a professional golf player, you will get the same results as he does, regardless of who you are. To quote "The Science of Getting Rich":
"If getting rich is the result of doing things in a certain way, and if like causes always produce like effects, then any man or woman who can do things in that way can become rich, and the whole matter is brought within the domain of exact science."
People tend to think that the following are the causes of getting rich:
• The environment in which you're currently working or have set up your business. That is, the neighborhood, town, city, state, or country in which you currently work.
• How much talent you have or how smart you are.
• Choosing a particular business or profession.
• Doing things others fail to do.
• Having easy access to capital.
Ho wever, Mr. Wattles explains one by one why these factors are not the causes of achieving wealth. Getting rich is not a matter of environment; there are countless examples of people working in the same business and in the same neighborhood, but one fails and the other succeeds.
If the environment were the cause of getting rich, everyone in the same state would be rich, while those in another state would all be poor. Although it is true that some environments or locations are more favorable than others, the environment is not the cause of getting rich.
Also, talent is not the cause of getting rich, for there are many talented people who are not wealthy, and there are many people with little talent who are very rich. There are many intelligent people, often with high education, that fail at achieving financial success, while there are many college drop outs who become millionaires.
Additionally, people get rich and people fail in every business and in every pr ofession. It is true that you will do better in a business that you like, and if you have some well developed talents you will do better in a business in which you can apply those talents, but getting wealthy is not determine by the business or profession you choose.
Getting rich is also not the result of doing things others fail to do, for two people in the same business can be carrying out the same activities, but one gets rich and the other files for bankruptcy. There are a lot of hard working people whose lives are filled with struggle and who never manage to accumulate wealth.
In addition, a lack of capital will not prevent you from getting rich. You can slowly begin to get access to capital and, as you progress, the access to capital will become easier and faster.
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Wattles concludes that the aforementioned factors cannot be the cause of getting rich. So, if getting rich is not a result of the factors discussed above , what does getting rich depend on?
Mr. Wattles explains that in order to become rich you have to do things in "a certain way", regardless of where you are, what business you're in, how much capital you have, or how talented you may be.
What you need in order to be able to do things in this "certain way" is:
• Enough intelligence to read and understand "The Science of Getting Rich".
• A willingness to interact with people to some degree.
• Basic common sense; for example, don't start a salmon fishery where there are no salmons.
• And, most importantly, begin to live in harmony with the laws governing the universe. These laws are explained in "The Science of Getting Rich".
Since like causes produce like effects, no matter who you are, where your business is located, or what your personal circumstances may be, if you act in accordance with the principles and laws that govern the process of acquiring wealth, you must get the res ults you're looking for. The cause is doing things "in a certain way", and money is the effect.
Mr. Wattles says to start where you are right now. Begin in your present business-or other situation-, and in your present location, to do things in a certain way which causes success. Begin right now, wherever you are.
Recommend Getting Rich is an Exact Science IssuesQuestion by : how did science from the 16th and 17th century differ from the middle ages? I'm trying to compare them but I wasn't so sure about the middle age science? I know that in the 16th and 17th century, scientific revolution began but the middle ages? Best answer for how did science from the 16th and 17th century differ from the middle ages?:
Answer by Mark M
In the middle ages, it was believed that all things were fixed, and all knowledge was written down by the ancients such as aristotle. By the 16th/17th century's the scientific method of observation and experimentation. The world was a puzzle that needed to be solved.
Answer by Jonathan
The idea that medieval scholars thought that ancient thinkers had already figured everything out is incorrect. There was immense respect for the ancient authorities, certainly, but as one medieval scholastic put it, "We are dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants - they are greater than us, yet we see further than they do." Medieval thinkers were constantly questioning and challenging the learning of the past. The difference was method. Medieval thinkers tended to work deductively; they would begin from a small number of premises and proceed by logical conclusions from the premises, the way that you construct a proof in geometry or algebra. They were perfectly rational and perfectly willing to question and challenge old ideas, but they made minimal use of observation in most fields. What changed in the 16th century was a shift to inductive (rather than deductive) reasoning; using observation to collect lots of data and proposing a hypothesis to account for the data. Roger Bacon had proposed back in the 14th century that experience needed to play more of a role in learning, and Francis Bacon developed this into the rudiments of "scientific method" as we know it in the 16th. In the Muslim world, experimentation had already begun to develop as a method in medical studies, and this had started to spread to European physicians. Alchemy and astronomy also helped pioneer experimental method. But in Europe, it only really caught on and became the dominant system for tackling scientific questions in the 16th century.
0 comments:
Post a Comment