It is as if, but quantifying the truth, there might be some immunity from it.
Assumptions ... can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
In the state of Washington, a portion of a bridge over the Skagit River, disappeared in "a big puff of dust," according to driver Dan Sligh, who, together with his wife, was unable to stop in time and ended up in the drink. The assumption that the road was smooth and reliable ... poof.
In London, there is shock and horror after a young soldier was brutally slain Wednesday, apparently by
Britain's terror threat level has remained unchanged at "substantial" - the middle of five possible rankings.(An AP story, linked above, was so intent on the "terror" aspects that it failed to mention the name of the young man slain, Lee Rigby.)
When has the quantification of "terror" ever adequately addressed the problem? Yes, you can frighten people; yes, you can support an amorphous bureaucracy; yes, you can pretend to understand (and thus, maybe, sidestep) the reality ... but in a large group of individuals, terror, so-called, is an option no matter how much money is spent. Where peace is gift-wrapped, war is sure to follow.
Assume the rug is there and, when that doesn't quite work, assume it will be pulled out from under you.
Assume that there is safety.
Assume that there is danger.
Assume that assumptions are good or bad, right or wrong.
Building up or tearing down, assumptions seem to form a Miracle Glue that holds "it" all together.
I assume you're old enough to know the usefulness of miracles.