How Do We Know Things?

[_wenglund]

Do you have a similar problem with "subjective" secular matters, including those where mortal life and limb may hang in the balance? And, if so, do you deal with the problem in the same way you do with religious matters?

For example: Suppose your child was diagnosed with cancer, and various doctors suggested different treatment plans, and they each differed with one another as to the child's prognosis. Since there is currently no empirical means to determine factually which, if any, of the doctors are right, you would be faced with a "subjective" decision. What would you do? Throw your hands in the air and say "I don't believe in doctors or medicine"? ;-)

I certainly wouldn't. I would make the best choice I could, and hope and have faith that it was the right choice, trusting in my preferred doctor. I approach "subjective" decisions about eternal life in much the same way. I have faith, trust, and confidence in the Supreme doctor. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, Wade, the one thing you wouldn't do in this case is say, "Never mind what anyone else says. I'm going with my feelings." You would make an educated guess, wouldn't you? Or would you just say, "I get a warm feeling inside when I talk to the faith healer"?

I don't know that I would go exclusiveky with any of the choices you just mentioned. But, I am certainly not adverse to factoring in "feelings" (sensory sensations, emotional weighting, intuitions, etc.) into the decision-making mix, whether in secular or religious matters. I have found the "heart" to be a valued compliment to the "head" when making "subjective"\inductive choices. In fact, I find that my ability to make wiser choices, and more benefitial "educated guesses", increase the more appropriately I balance input from my "heart" and "head".

What about you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I don't know that I would go exclusiveky with any of the choices you just mentioned. But, I am certainly not adverse to factoring in "feelings" (sensory sensations, emotional weighting, intuitions, etc.) into the decision-making mix, whether in secular or religious matters. I have found the "heart" to be a valued compliment to the "head" when making "subjective"\inductive choices. In fact, I find that my ability to make wiser choices, and more benefitial "educated guesses", increase the more appropriately I balance input from my "heart" and "head".

What about you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I went only with my head, I would not be living in Utah right now. What you were attempting to describe was a purely subjective decision, and as your comments above show, your example cannot be purely a subjective decision.

[_wenglund]

Besides the fact that there isn't only 'one true' way of treating diseases. One treatment may work for one person, while another one may work for someone else.

Like I said earlier, if that's the way that god (if he exists) works, then that's fine. (one religion works for one person, while another works for someone else).

But again, you fail to address the fact that this is inconsistent with the LDS church. See (and address) amazingdisgrace's post.

edit - additionally, we have examples to base our decision on. ie., 95% of patients survived cancer through X treatment. we have no such test data when it comes to religion - ie., 100% of Mormons (who follow the commandments) have been 'saved'.

So, it's not that you have a problem with subjectivity per se. Rather, your problem is with subjectivity in select cases where claims are made of being "the only true whatever" and where the end result is not currently determinate.

Let's explore your "end result" contention. Continuing with the previous analogy, let's say it is 1958 and your child has acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), and you are approached by Sidney Farber of the Harvard Medical School and told of an exploritory drug called "6-mercaptopurine" (6-MP). There had as yet been no long-term studies on the effectiveness of the drug for curing leukemia, but a decade or so earlier Farber had discover another drug, "aminopterin", a precursor to 6-MP, which produced temporary remision in children with ALL. However, leukemia was considered at the time to be incurable, and in 1948, when Farber submitted his report on "aminopterin" to the New England Journal of Medicine, he was met with "incredulity and ridicule" by the medical profession.

With that in mind, would you have your child take the drug from Dr Farber or his college, Joseph Burchenal, at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Wade - I'm not going to play your 'example' game, until you address the logic in AD's post.

[_wenglund]

Let's test your conclusion using the epistemological method called "science". In an abstract of an article called "For the Problem of the Correspondence Principle" there stated:

Really, Newtonian mechanics is based on the statement that the motion of a free material point is determined only by choice of system of reference (I.e. the motion is not attribute of a material point). However, the new theory negate this main statement: namely, the motion is attribute of a quantum particle (I.e. its motion does not depend on a choice of system of reference). From the logical point of view, it means that the quantum theory and Newtonian mechanics contradict each other in principal point. Therefore, one of them is a true theory, and another is a false theory if they are used for the description of the same object in one and the same sense.

This being true, then according to your reasoning, science is not reliable.

Examples of other competing or contradictory propositions/hypothesis/theories in science become considerably more plentiful with the soft sciences. Should they be tossed to the wind along with religion? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, Wade, that two theories contradict each other does not mean the whole of science is unreliable. What a strange conclusion.

I agree. However, it may interest you to learn that the conclusion isn't mine, but AD's, as per his "logic". I appreciate your confirmation of my sentiment. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

What you were attempting to describe was a purely subjective decision, and as your comments above show, your example cannot be purely a subjective decision.

I am not sure what you mean by "purely subjective", but I cerainly never used the term, nor did I intend to describe such.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

I agree. However, it may interest you to learn that the conclusion isn't mine, but AD's, as per his "logic". I appreciate your confirmation of my sentiment. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade's losing it...

I'm not sure if he truly doesn't understand, or is doing this on purpose.

[_wenglund]

Wade - I'm not going to play your 'example' game, until you address the logic in AD's post.

I already addressed it using Reductio ad absurdem (by way of my "science" analogy). Sorry you missed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Wade - I'm not going to play your 'example' game, until you address the logic in AD's post.

I already addressed it using Reductio ad absurdem (by way of my "science" analogy). Sorry you missed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, no you didn't. Read his post again. And see if your analogy fits.

It doesn't.

[_wenglund]

Wade - I'm not going to play your 'example' game, until you address the logic in AD's post.

I already addressed it using Reductio ad absurdem (by way of my "science" analogy). Sorry you missed it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Uh, no you didn't. Read his post again. And see if your analogy fits.

It doesn't.

Where doesn't it fit? (try diagraming his argument and mine, and see if they aren't the same--they are)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-