quote:How can *I* (with no lab, only a basic knowledge of science, and no time to do extensive research) test each link on the chain that leads to the assertion that I should get a flu vaccine? How am I supposed to know what is at the end of the chain?
You could go ahead and acquire the necessary training. Alternately, you could find someone who has the training and ask them to check for you. And you could even double-check by finding someone skeptical, asking them to do the exact same thing, and seeing if the result's the same.
Good luck doing that with questions about God.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly I can't acquire the necessary training to test every link of every chain for every question that comes up in life. I'm going to assume that's not what you're suggesting a rational person has to do in order to be rational. Even just to answer the vaccine question would take me years of education. Attempting to become an expert on every significant question in life seems to me to be in about the same realm of possibility as calling up God on the telephone and expecting Him to answer every question I have.
But if the other option is finding someone else to check for me, how does that do anything other than simply add another link in the chain? I still have no proof that the person I'd found correctly checked all the links for me. When it comes to religion, I can easily find plenty of people willing to confirm if what my pastor said is accurate, and they'll usually do it free of charge. But that doesn't tell me if that person is right either. The same is true for doctors, or any other expert.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if the other option is finding someone else to check for me, how does that do anything other than simply add another link in the chain?
I'm going to ask this again: do you not see the distinction?
I'll even re-cite my example. Consider how you would go about testing the claim "vaccines can prevent diseases" versus the claim "God can raise the dead." How would you determine someone's expertise re: those questions? If you were to ask ten professionals to make two lists of the qualifications someone would need to test those claims, in what ways would those lists differ?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll repeat what I said again then: Yes, I see the distinction. I don't think the distinction is what you're trying to suggest it is. I think the distinction is based on unprovable assumptions that you are bringing in about who can be trusted, and really is not about the degree of experimental evidence available to us.
To answer your question... For the vaccines, assuming you mean I have the resources to actually test them, first I'd have to get the vaccine. I'd give the vaccine to a set of people who are very similar to me, then compare it to another set of people who are very similar to me that did not recieve the vaccine, observe the positive and negative differences between the two sets over a large period of time, analyze those results in the context of whatever medical training I was given, and hope that whatever results I get are the result of the vaccine and not some other variable I don't know about. If I saw evidence of vaccines preventing diseases then I'd know it can. If not, I'd test it in other ways in different circumstances to see if anything changes. If I keep doing that and still nothing, then I'd be unable to answer the question because it will always be possible that vaccines can prevent diseases in some way other than how I tested it. I would never be able to show that vaccines can't prevent diseases.
For "God can raise the dead", assuming I have the reasources again, it could be simpler - I'd just look through the historical records to see if it ever happened, and hope that those records are not false. If yes, then the question is answered. If no, then I'd ask God to try (unlike vaccines, God can choose how to behave) and if someone was raised from the dead then I'd hope there's no confounding variables other than God causing it, and I would conclude yes. If he wasn't able to do it, or if he didn't try when asked, then I'd be unable to determine for sure if He can't. Just as it is impossible to show vaccines can't prevent disease, it is impossible to show God can't raise the dead.
Please know that the practical reality is that in neither case (especially not the vaccines) do I have the resources to actually test it. In either case, somebody could have the resources, but not me and not most people. Please also note that both methods also involve essentially "hoping" that the results of the study reflect reality; I can't prove absolutely that it does.
As for expertise, I'd measure vaccine expertise based on having either lots of study of or experience with medicine, but I'd also find a certification by the larger medical community (like an doctoral degree) to be convincing too. I'd measure God expertise based on either lots of study or experience with religion, but I'd also find a certification by a larger church (like being ordained as a priest) to be convincing too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidently, I'll add that I don't think most practical religious questions in life are things like "Can God raise the dead?" They are more things along the lines of "Should I forgive so and so?" or "Will I have the strength to do this?" or "What's the right thing to do?"
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The same is true for doctors, or any other expert.
Except that doctors and scientists have performed repeatable experiments which you can repeat if you wish, and that you can often assume that if the doctor or scientist has made stuff up or lied about the results, other will speak up and call BS (and they would then present proof).
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Others do speak up and call BS about vaccines - some say they don't work and cause autism, etc. They offer what they consider proof of that.
But I still lack the resources and knowledge to perform any experiments to verify it myself. So no, I definitely can't repeat their experiments.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
If a religious figure claimed that 'God can raise the dead,' and he cites other religious figures or people who have had holy experiences or whatever, there is no way you could repeat those and expect the same result. The repeatability criterion is not there. No amount of resources could get you to the point where you could expect a miracle to be repeated.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw, if someone was raised from the dead and it was recorded, how would you determine that god was the agent?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you had the ability to get God to try to raise the dead when you asked, then you could test that as well. That possibility in theory means little when you don't have it in reality though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incidently, I'll add that I don't think most practical religious questions in life are things like "Can God raise the dead?" They are more things along the lines of "Should I forgive so and so?" or "Will I have the strength to do this?"
I don't think those are particularly religious questions. They're questions that some people try to use religion to answer.
quote:Please know that the practical reality is that in neither case (especially not the vaccines) do I have the resources to actually test it.
By making this personal, you miss the point. Someone has the resources to reliably test vaccines. And of these someones, enough of them are testing that there is something like a consensual arrangement obtained. No one has the resources to reproducibly test God -- or any religious claim -- in any way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're assuming that it's possible to ask God to raise the dead.
If you don't believe in God or don't believe in miracles, than there isn't even the possibility in theory. There just is no possibility for repetition.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax seems to regard any knowledge that he (personally) does not have immediate knowledge of as being known only through faith. And there is to be no discrimination between the various types of non-immediate knowledge. I think he is a time-traveler from the sixteenth century.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:By making this personal, you miss the point. Someone has the resources to reliably test vaccines. And of these someones, enough of them are testing that there is something like a consensual arrangement obtained. No one has the resources to reproducibly test God -- or any religious claim -- in any way.
How could you possibly know that?
Again, the distinction between trusting a religious expert and trusting a medical expert stems from the assumptions brought in by the person doing the trusting, not from experimental evidence. You are assuming that no one has tested God, but it's entirely possible that people speak to God all the time and know all sorts of things about Him reliably (some people claim this, after all.) That's something based on your worldview, not based on any material evidence. When I see my doctor, I am assuming that he was trained by experts and is following that training, I am assuming that those experts knew what they were doing when they conducted their research, I am assuming that their research can be repeated by other scientists, and I am assuming that if mistakes were made initially they would be caught by other scientists repeating the research. All of these are based on my larger worldview, not on specific evidence available to me that science is definitely doing what it seems to me that it is doing.
Those assumptions about the bigger picture of how the chain of knowledge works in science vs. the chain of knowledge in religion constitute the real distinction between trusting a doctor and trusting a pastor. It's not that average people go out and experiment to double check their doctor's advice. It's not that doctors have personally researched everything they prescribe. It's not that patients are practically capable of verifying their doctor's claims through experimentation. It's that the patients have a larger view of science that assumes knowledge is being checked thoroughly, that it is being passed down accurately through the chain, and so on. It's because the patients trust in those assumptions.
The same thing is true in other areas of expertise, including those that are not checked by any repeatable experimentation. Advice from teachers is trusted by many, not because they have access to evidence the teacher is right, but because they trust in their own assumptions that the educational system would only send competent teachers. Advice from police officers is trusted by most, not because we can prove a given police officer knows what they are talking about, but because people assume that the uniform implies we should trust them. Advice given in a newspaper is trusted not because the reader has evidence that the advisor knows what they are talking about, but rather because people assume the newspaper wouldn't hire someone who didn't know what they are talking about.
This type of trusting is not irrational. We'd need to do it to get through everyday life, because we cannot become experts on everything and study everything. In fact, it would be irrational not to go to experts and rely on them for some answers. This is how real people regularly behave and survive life.
That means it is not valid to claim religion is irrational because religious people don't have "evidence" to prove all their beliefs, or because they often have to trust authorities to tell them what to believe. Rational people behave that way all the time. If there is a difference in religion's case then it stems from your assumptions and your worldview. I'm fine with you asserting that you think your assumptions are correct and others are wrong. Obviously you think that. But claiming others are wrong is different from claiming they are irrational. Under a religious set of assumptions about the world, it logically and rationally follows that one should often trust in priests or religious authorities.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: When I see my doctor, I am assuming that he was trained by experts and is following that training, I am assuming that those experts knew what they were doing when they conducted their research, I am assuming that their research can be repeated by other scientists, and I am assuming that if mistakes were made initially they would be caught by other scientists repeating the research.
That's because he was trained by a certified group of experts (he's got the degree to prove it), their research can be repeated, is repeated, and when it can't be repeated the original experiment is thrown into doubt. That is what science does very well.
quote:It's not that doctors have personally researched everything they prescribe. It's not that patients are practically capable of verifying their doctor's claims through experimentation. It's that the patients have a larger view of science that assumes knowledge is being checked thoroughly, that it is being passed down accurately through the chain, and so on. It's because the patients trust in those assumptions.
It's because if you wanted to, you could follow the "rules of science" all the way back to the original assumptions, through a peer-reviewed, rigorous, experimentally proven chain.
quote:Advice from teachers is trusted by many, not because they have access to evidence the teacher is right, but because they trust in their own assumptions that the educational system would only send competent teachers.
Maybe for you, but I sure didn't assume that my school would send me competent teachers. There were several times where the teachers clearly were not competent, and I would have gotten a worse education if I assumed that they were.
quote:That means it is not valid to claim religion is irrational because religious people don't have "evidence" to prove all their beliefs, or because they often have to trust authorities to tell them what to believe.
I respectfully disagree. The concept of miraculous healing or resurrection has no evidence, no proof, and has in no way (except through stories) made itself apparent in my lifetime. Now, if I saw one miraculous healing, or one resurrection, then things would be different. I'd still have my doubts. Maybe I was tricked. If I saw another, and another, I would change my mind. But I haven't seen even one. I haven't even heard someone I would trust tell me that they've seen even one.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would see advice you get from clergy as more like legal advice than medical advice. They have studied the law, they know what the precedents are, they know what outcomes are likely.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Again, the distinction between trusting a religious expert and trusting a medical expert stems from the assumptions brought in by the person doing the trusting, not from experimental evidence. You are assuming that no one has tested God, but it's entirely possible that people speak to God all the time and know all sorts of things about Him reliably (some people claim this, after all.) That's something based on your worldview, not based on any material evidence.
I am observing that no one has produced sufficient evidence of any test of God that does not allow for a host of equally plausible (or more plausible) explanations.
quote: When I see my doctor, I am assuming that he was trained by experts and is following that training, I am assuming that those experts knew what they were doing when they conducted their research, I am assuming that their research can be repeated by other scientists, and I am assuming that if mistakes were made initially they would be caught by other scientists repeating the research. All of these are based on my larger worldview, not on specific evidence available to me that science is definitely doing what it seems to me that it is doing.
Assumptions are made for convenience; however they are always open to revision. Hence people change doctors, file malpractice claims, get second opinions etc. Fundamentally, though, the reason the assumption is made at all is that the myriad medical successes have provided a normative reason to go to the doctor when sick.
quote: Those assumptions about the bigger picture of how the chain of knowledge works in science vs. the chain of knowledge in religion constitute the real distinction between trusting a doctor and trusting a pastor. It's not that average people go out and experiment to double check their doctor's advice. It's not that doctors have personally researched everything they prescribe. It's not that patients are practically capable of verifying their doctor's claims through experimentation. It's that the patients have a larger view of science that assumes knowledge is being checked thoroughly, that it is being passed down accurately through the chain, and so on. It's because the patients trust in those assumptions.
The difference is that the chain of knowledge in science has repeatedly been demonstrated to be highly successful. It is fallible - sometimes researchers present false results, sometimes human error occurs, sometimes unplanned for events occur etc etc. However, we have computers, cars, long lifespans etc due to science. These are tangible outcomes due to both the scientific process (obtaining laws) and acceptance of the 'chain of knowledge' (engineers assume the scientific laws and have successfully built some remarkably complex things).
quote: The same thing is true in other areas of expertise, including those that are not checked by any repeatable experimentation. Advice from teachers is trusted by many, not because they have access to evidence the teacher is right, but because they trust in their own assumptions that the educational system would only send competent teachers. Advice from police officers is trusted by most, not because we can prove a given police officer knows what they are talking about, but because people assume that the uniform implies we should trust them. Advice given in a newspaper is trusted not because the reader has evidence that the advisor knows what they are talking about, but rather because people assume the newspaper wouldn't hire someone who didn't know what they are talking about.
People change these habits really fast based on experience. Would a Zulu have trusted an Africaner policeman in apartheid era South Africa? Would you continue to unquestionably accept news from an error-prone newspaper?
quote: This type of trusting is not irrational. We'd need to do it to get through everyday life, because we cannot become experts on everything and study everything. In fact, it would be irrational not to go to experts and rely on them for some answers. This is how real people regularly behave and survive life.
But it would be irrational if these assumptions weren't revised based on outcomes.
quote: That means it is not valid to claim religion is irrational because religious people don't have "evidence" to prove all their beliefs, or because they often have to trust authorities to tell them what to believe. Rational people behave that way all the time. If there is a difference in religion's case then it stems from your assumptions and your worldview. I'm fine with you asserting that you think your assumptions are correct and others are wrong. Obviously you think that. But claiming others are wrong is different from claiming they are irrational. Under a religious set of assumptions about the world, it logically and rationally follows that one should often trust in priests or religious authorities.
My claim is not that religion is irrational. Rationality is a very tricky thing. It is very rational that one wants life to be as enjoyable for one as possible. Practicing religion might be an asset in realizing this very rational goal. My claim is simply that the evidence for the existence of god is deficient when compared to say evidence of the existence of an electron.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: We'd need to do it to get through everyday life, because we cannot become experts on everything and study everything. In fact, it would be irrational not to go to experts and rely on them for some answers. This is how real people regularly behave and survive life.
What makes people experts is that they know what claims in the field pass reality checks, and which ones don't. And they can demonstrate their expertice by pointing you to the reality checks that support their claims.
A theological expert might know what Thomas Aquinis wrote, and be able to point you to the text to prove that what he claims he wrote he did in fact write. That's the reality check for that. But they can't provide the reality check demonstrating that Jesus redeemed you from sin, or that God wants you to tithe 10% of your income. There's just no way to reality check those.
That's the difference.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are assuming that no one has tested God, but it's entirely possible that people speak to God all the time and know all sorts of things about Him reliably...
I have material evidence that people can make testable claims about vaccines.
I have no material evidence suggesting that people can make testable claims about God. If you do, you're welcome to present some.
Until then, it is perfectly rational to assume that no such evidence exists, in the same way that it is perfectly rational to assume that there are no unicorn horns to be found in the wild.
------------
quote:I would see advice you get from clergy as more like legal advice than medical advice.
Except that the one thing clergy claim to provide that a therapist cannot is God's opinion on the matter. Going to a clergyperson for life advice not related to God's opinion would be like going to a doctor for legal advice. It's entirely possible that a given doctor might even be able to offer competent legal advice on certain topics, but that's not within the remit of the profession.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: People change these habits really fast based on experience. Would a Zulu have trusted an Africaner policeman in apartheid era South Africa? Would you continue to unquestionably accept news from an error-prone newspaper?
Nor would I trust a religion that seemed bad to me or trusted a priest who gave me error prone advice.
Tom, I should have been more clear. I was saying that going to clergy for religious advice was more like going to a lawyer for legal edvice than it was like going to a doctor for medical advice.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have material evidence that people can make testable claims about vaccines.
I have no material evidence suggesting that people can make testable claims about God. If you do, you're welcome to present some.
Until then, it is perfectly rational to assume that no such evidence exists, in the same way that it is perfectly rational to assume that there are no unicorn horns to be found in the wild.
Bob the farmer in rural Africa has no material evidence that viruses exist and has almost no understanding of how science works. If a doctor comes to visit and warns him that he needs to take precautions against the "HIV virus", is it perfectly rational for him to assume that unless the doctor can present him with material evidence that people can make testable claims about "viruses", no such evidence exists?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob is ignorant. This is curable. By what reliable method would you suggest someone can become less ignorant about God?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have material evidence that people can make testable claims about vaccines.
I have no material evidence suggesting that people can make testable claims about God. If you do, you're welcome to present some.
Until then, it is perfectly rational to assume that no such evidence exists, in the same way that it is perfectly rational to assume that there are no unicorn horns to be found in the wild.
Bob the farmer in rural Africa has no material evidence that viruses exist and has almost no understanding of how science works. If a doctor comes to visit and warns him that he needs to take precautions against the "HIV virus", is it perfectly rational for him to assume that unless the doctor can present him with material evidence that people can make testable claims about "viruses", no such evidence exists?
It he asks the doctor "How do you know this virus ixists? I can't see it. I don't believe you." The doctor can explain it, give him a pamphlet that has references, can point him to a book or journal that explains it. All of the tools that Bob the farmer needs to learn for himself are there. If Bob doesn't believe something, he can look it up, or ask someone else, or work really hard and test it himself.
If a missionary tells Bob the farmer that heaven exists and that the only way he can get to it is to become Christian and accept Jesus, and Bob asks "How do you know this heaven exists? I can't see it. I don't believe you." The missionary can only tell stories and give Bob the bible. If Bob doesn't believe something, he's stuck.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what to they reference? If Bob doesn't believe the Bible, where else are you going to point him to?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can also coach bob through very simple experiments that demonstrate the validity of the scientific method through the production of repeatable results. You can even take that start and expand it exponentially with education. By the time Bob's through with even junior high school level science you have demonstrated through testable claims what science has that religion does not: productive answers to testable claims.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, we are falling into the trap of thinking that the scientif method is the only tool we have for understanding life.
TWW, If Bob doesn't believe science why would writing it down make any difference. And there is a whole host of written material about theology that isn't the Bible or even about the Bible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, we are falling into the trap of thinking that the scientific method is the only tool we have for understanding life.
It is the only method which reliably finds and discards false and erroneous claims.
You can't expect to find true things if you can't differentiate them from false.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, we are falling into the trap of thinking that the scientif method is the only tool we have for understanding life.[/quote[]
We are?
[quote]TWW, If Bob doesn't believe science why would writing it down make any difference.
You don't understand how going through the scientific method to discern testable things makes a difference in understanding science?
Overall I think the counterargument that says "Well if he doesn't believe it, how is it any different than religion?" is an extraordinarily weak equivalency argument. It is forced to ignore why they are really not equivalent at all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bob is ignorant. This is curable. By what reliable method would you suggest someone can become less ignorant about God?
In this example, neither Bob nor the doctor has time to extensively school Bob in science. Bob has to go farm his crops and the doctor has to go visit other people. Bob doesn't understand the pamphlets or books given to him. So, practically speaking Bob's ignorance of biology and science is not going to be cured. Given this, given that no material evidence is practically available to show Bob that would convince him that the doctor is speaking the truth, is Bob irrational to accept what the doctor is telling him about the HIV threat?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends. Does Bob understand the difference between what makes the doctor a doctor and a shaman a shaman?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, Bob might not have the time to try and understand all that. So Bob might go to the shaman for his problems. And Pete might go to the doctor for his. If Bob, following the shaman's advice, becomes ill and dies while Pete, following the doctor's advice, will live, who do you think others will turn to? Sure, the shaman might tell them, it was Bob's turn to die and whatever we did couldn't save him. But people are not forced to believe him on that. And they will remember that and the next time the doctor tells them they're sick they will probably not turn to the shaman.
And, you know, Pete might die too. After all, doctors can't cure everything. But multiply the Bob/Pete situation by 10, 100, 1000. When 900 out of 1000 shaman's patients die, and 100 out of 1000 doctor's patients die, who do you think people will turn to? They might not see the virus, but they can see the two methods' effects. Even someone with no medical understanding is more likely to choose the solution that gives him the best odds to live from the evidence he's seen.
So Bob might still be screwed. But after a while there won't be too many Bobs left, people who have had no first hand experience of a doctor's work or its effects.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does Bob understand the difference between what makes the doctor a doctor and a shaman a shaman?
We'll say he knows there is a difference, but doesn't know what a med school is or exactly what process doctors go through to become doctors. He does know that doctors use "science" to heal sick people, and that shamans do not.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then, no, Bob is not behaving rationally. He has failed to obtain the bare minimum of data necessary to make a rational decision; he lacks the ability to evaluate the quality of any datum put before him, precluding the rationality of any decisions he might be called upon to make.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you think that if Bob is to behave rationally, given he doesn't have more data or understanding, he should ignore the doctors warnings about the HIV threat?
The problem here is that I'd wager the vast majority of people in the world, even most people in America, are a lot like Bob. They don't have time to go research things on their own, they don't really have a firm grasp on how science operates, they wouldn't understand how to interpret the results of a scientific reasearch paper if given to them to read, etc. Studies also seem to suggest this lack of understanding of science.
Given that, and given that these people aren't about to all go spend significant amounts of time taking courses in science so they can understand how to interpret scientific evidence, your standard of rationality seems to suggest that these people shouldn't trust the advice given to them by doctors and other experts. I'd think that would result in many of them getting dangerously sick.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you think that if Bob is to behave rationally, given he doesn't have more data or understanding, he should ignore the doctors warnings about the HIV threat?
No. If Bob is to behave rationally, he should educate himself before making a decision. He is not equipped to make a rational decision with his current faculties.
Note that Bob might just choose to educate himself about what a doctor is, relative to what a shaman is; it is not necessary for him to fully understand the science to understand the difference in the quality of the recommendations he's received.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you mean educate himself about what a doctor is? What sort of things would he need to learn? And why would that make a difference? Earlier you said that "material evidence" is necessary. Looking up what a doctor is and how a doctor is different from a shaman does not give you anything "material" at all.
And even more problematic, what if it isn't possible for him to learn more details about what a doctor does that makes a doctor a doctor? Are you suggesting that unless someone is around to teach him, it is impossible for him to act rationally?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: What do you mean educate himself about what a doctor is? What sort of things would he need to learn? And why would that make a difference?
Doctors are the people who keep almost all diabetics from ending up like Kara Neumann. Doctors don't succeed 100% of the time, but usually if they say they can make you better, they succeed. And if they say they can't, no shaman will be able to do any better.
So if you want your child who's in a diabetic coma to live, it makes a very big difference that the doctor will probably be able to make that happen, and the shaman won't.
quote:And even more problematic, what if it isn't possible for him to learn more details about what a doctor does that makes a doctor a doctor?
Tom is arguing that part of the definition of a rational decision is that it's made in light of relevent evidence. So by that definition, a completely ignorant decision isn't rational. It just can't be.
If you want to define rational as being a process that has nothing to do with evidence, I suppose you can try. But by doing so, you've sucked all the virtue out the term. It's like saying that you don't see why Rolls-Royces are such great cars, because Ford Pintos are Rolls-Royces too, so what's the big deal?
posted
Yeah, I mean, you can't use bob as an example that makes the equivocation possible, no matter how strictly you maintain Bob's denseness and scientific illiteracy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doctors are the people who keep almost all diabetics from ending up like Kara Neumann. Doctors don't succeed 100% of the time, but usually if they say they can make you better, they succeed. And if they say they can't, no shaman will be able to do any better.
Bob has heard that this is said to be the case, from friends and neighbors. However, being a farmer in rural Africa, he has never done a scientific study of the success rate of doctors, so he certainly has no material evidence regarding whether or not advice from doctors usually works.
quote:Tom is arguing that part of the definition of a rational decision is that it's made in light of relevent evidence. So by that definition, a completely ignorant decision isn't rational. It just can't be.
Tom has essentially defined ignorance as lacking evidence to answer the question, and has limited the term "evidence" to include only material scientific evidence. By those standards, most people are ignorant about most things they have to decide in life. All children would be. All uneducated people would be. Even highly educated people who read sci-fi books and frequent internet forums would be ignorant on many issues that they have not studied closely.
I haven't offered any alternative definition. I'm simply pointing out that the concept of rationality that Tom is advocating directly would imply (1) that acting rationally is practically impossible for most people in most situations, and (2) that an average person trying to act rationally by Tom's definition would have to ignore the advice of countless experts, resulting in all sorts of dangerous decisions such as Bob's decision to assume AIDS isn't real.
If that were the true meaning of rationality, then rationality appears far less than it is cracked up to be, at least for us non-omniscient folks who don't have material evidence available for every possible question in the world.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:that acting rationally is practically impossible for most people in most situations
Rather, acting rationally is harder than being a lazy, stupid lump of know-nothingness.
If Bob's so uninterested in actually being able to judge for himself the truth of any given situation, my opinion of him is the least of his worries.
(It's worth noting, by the way, that I have not universally limited the word "evidence" to material, scientific evidence. But you're welcome to play dumb and pretend that you think I have, since it really doesn't appear to be working for you. Let me just point out, though, that this is an argument you have resoundingly lost.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather, acting rationally is harder than being a lazy, stupid lump of know-nothingness.
If Bob's so uninterested in actually being able to judge for himself the truth of any given situation, my opinion of him is the least of his worries.
Uninterested? Bob is a farmer. If he goes off to school his crops will die, and the tuition would be far more than he could reasonably afford. He could sell the farm and go off to school, but it wouldn't be enough for even a year's worth of education, and he'd be left with nothing afterwards. Bob would love to understand what science is all about, but he can't. Not everyone in the world has the luxury of possessing all the knowledge that you seem to think everyone should have.
quote:(It's worth noting, by the way, that I have not universally limited the word "evidence" to material, scientific evidence. But you're welcome to play dumb and pretend that you think I have, since it really doesn't appear to be working for you. Let me just point out, though, that this is an argument you have resoundingly lost.)
In a way similar to how the doctor resoundingly "lost" his argument with Bob when he failed to convince Bob that HIV exists, perhaps... I'm not sure my goal is necessarily to "win" so much as come to the correct answer though.
However, if you are not limiting "evidence" to only material, scientific evidence in the context of rationality, then please tell me what it is you consider evidence to be - because you are ambiguously switching back and forth whenever it suits your point. For instance, you did just say this:
"I have material evidence that people can make testable claims about vaccines.
I have no material evidence suggesting that people can make testable claims about God. If you do, you're welcome to present some.
Until then, it is perfectly rational to assume that no such evidence exists, in the same way that it is perfectly rational to assume that there are no unicorn horns to be found in the wild."
Do see why that might lead me to believe you believe material evidence is the only sort of evidence that counts?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Uninterested? Bob is a farmer. If he goes off to school his crops will die, and the tuition would be far more than he could reasonably afford. He could sell the farm and go off to school, but it wouldn't be enough for even a year's worth of education, and he'd be left with nothing afterwards. Bob would love to understand what science is all about, but he can't. Not everyone in the world has the luxury of possessing all the knowledge that you seem to think everyone should have.
This is sort of getting into a "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" type argument. Which is true. But I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. If you have no idea what science is and don't have the opportunity to learn and no one bothers to teach you and the shaman and the doctor are equally respected members of the village then of COURSE it's going to be irrelevant which one you go to.
That doesn't change the fact science is completely based around the notion that anyone CAN understand it if they approach it from the bottom up, and once they do it's going to become clear that it works. Whereas mysticism will always be shrouded in mystery and regardless of whether it has truth to it, one will never be able to distinguish it from placebo-smokes-and-mirrors.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The shaman and doctor and not equally respected though. The village considers the doctor to be much more of a valid authority. They just have no material evidence to back that conclusion up.
My point is that it is perfectly rational to accept an expert's opinion as strong evidence itself, even if you have no material evidence to back it up. In fact, it would be irrational of Bob not to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am an expert in the field of determining whether someone is being rational or not. Bob is not being rational if he accepts the shaman as an expert. You should accept my opinion as strong evidence, and not doing so would be irrational.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The shaman and doctor and not equally respected though. The village considers the doctor to be much more of a valid authority.
Oh, Lord, if only that were true.
quote:My point is that it is perfectly rational to accept an expert's opinion as strong evidence itself...
My point is that the shaman is not an expert. And it is not rational to accept someone's opinion as an expert opinion unless you have a solid rationale for doing so, which Bob does not. Moreover, you have created a hypothetical situation in which Bob is unable to do so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My situation is not all that hypothetical; I'd bet there's over a billion people in the world that are practically unable to establish what you are calling "a solid rationale" for trusting medical experts.
But beyond even that, I'm guessing that even you trust experts for which you have no material evidence of their expertise. Which experts have you trusted recently? Ever call a help line without establishing anything about the person on the other line giving help? Ever trust something told to you by a Hatracker on this forum whose identity you've never verified? I suspect that there's plenty of times where even you have trusted the expertise of people with no material evidence and no "solid rationale" other than that they appear to be an expert.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole Bob thing is being tortured to death by now. All Bob really establishes is that it is very possible for people to be incredibly ignorant, especially when they are hypothetical people in extraordinarily contorted hypothetical conceptualizations custom-tailored for ignorance.
re: the material evidence/help line thing: I can't open Office one day. I call up Microsoft's technical help number and rationally expect for them to be more likely to help me solve my software problem than my friend Greg. I can do this without the whole "establishment" or "material evidence" related to who is going to be on the other end of the line. I can make this rational assessment with a solid rationale, without having to do anything like witness the person on the other end of the line solve other computer problems first.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
