Most statements are contextual and taken out of that context they become nonsense. Any statement that isn't must be a full description of the world. The dichot

Most statements are contextual and taken out of that context they become nonsense. Any statement that isn't must be a full description of the world. The dichotomy I spoke of is more plain in the architect v. structural engineer example. The human terms the architect considers are building usage, energy distribution, flows of traffic, aesthetics, color, material, use of glass. By given each one and many others due consideration the architect attempts to build a useful, beautiful structure for humans. The structural engineer attempts to decide if it's going to implode after its first earthquake (or even before). He doesn't care whether humans enjoy it. He cares whether the architects' dream has a right to exist in reality. In the bus example, this is meant to suggest that just because we can humanly fear for the safety of our children it is wise to design with precision and care for reality otherwise we might make something comforting but ineffectual. To do this pretty near requires switching your mind into a mode that abstractly considers the forces of impact a child's body might undergo during a bus crash. I simply want to reiterate that the voice of reason may be cold, but you should be unafraid to keep it in your toolbox, so to speak.