my theory

Four arugments why this theory is like a ridiculous virus:

1
Imagine a rational society. If your view is correct, everyone would adhere to the common wisdom. Except if the tilt is pretty even (51/49), which would cause people to be iffy until some random event tilted the odds one way. So under your view, a rational society will eventually never, ever be able to change it's opinions about anything. (If anyone came up with a new theory it would be instantly quashed by the majority). New facts or information can never inform a people's ethics.

Well, unless foriengers or aliens invaded or something. (And there would have to be enough foriengers become the majority! And, the prevailiing view of ethics would have to be "we should be open to ethics discussions with foriengers").

Retarded example: Say there's an island of people who believe "any foreigners should leave immediately, and commit suicide for defiling our holy ground." Say a few other countries believe in world-wide diplomacy or the scientific value of exploration. The small bands of explorers they send would meet a town of islanders. The islanders convince the foriengers to go commit suicide. So the island is never ever invaded or even properly contacted, unless other countries send HUGE landing parties all at once. As an added bonus, the rest of the world that believes in exploration and diplomacy will continue to send explorer after explorer because they believe in those ideals, even knowing that whoever they send will get killed, because they can't ever un-believe in the value of striving for diplomacy.

2
This puts an awful lot of faith in the "starting" beliefs of a culture. Different groups could believe different things, and then using your rules, end up at completely different lifestyles. What would happen if everyone suddenly started using your rule?

Imagine a kid who acts wild joins a cult for two years, and then leaves because it's stupid. Compare that to an almost identical person who never met the cult recruiter and just listens to death metal instead. In a normal world they both end up being almost the same by the time they're 30. But if they started following your theory, the person in the cult would follow the cult majority and never, ever leave. Meanwhile, the rest of the country, following your beliefs, would live "normal" and completely diffently.

Are you suggesting that the two equal kids, one of whom was "destined" to be in a cult for only two years and one who was destined to act normally, should end up with completely different lifestyles for the rest of their lives? After all, they just make decisions "at the size of the majority" so the kid in the cult can never ever leave it. (Unless the majority decides to enter the cult for some reason - which depends on whatever their beliefs on cult-breaking are at the precise moment your theory takes effect).

Also, depending on when in history we applied your philosophy, humanity's beliefs would crystallize on totally different outcomes. Is that ok with you?

3
Gene/meme argument: Because majority wins, this philosophy buts a lot of weight on the number of subscribers. But we know that overpopulation can be deadly. Anyone with a philosophy of "have a lot of kids" or "don't use birth control" would probably eventually beat out other viewpoints, irregardless of how dangerous overpopulation is. But it's not like the overpopulators can ever decide that having too many kids is dangerous, because beliefs get stuck.

4

Originally Posted by insertnamehere

There is one parodox to my theory, but i donth consider this proving my theory wrong. Just cause it's wrong that one single instance does not mean it'a wrong all the time. if you think that parodox proves my theory wrong then try proving common sense is wrong. if you donth believe common sense is absolute truth then tell me what is right and wrong.

A good theory of philosophy should avoid monster-barring. You are supposed to throw as many paradoxes at your theory as you can to see if you can bring it down - that's good philosophy. You can't just will away contradictions for no reason, unforunately.

(Besides which, "the world is round" arugment is a fact, not a belief, and you said your theory doesn't apply to facts...)

Jam it back in, in the dark.