'Are we entitled to our own truth?'

[Walter]

Pithy little article from Emanual Papparella. In the end though, IMO,  it's a restatement of the problems of our biases.


http://tinyurl.com/zyzc5nq

Thanks for the article NS. What troubles me is why there is any disagreement with it from people on this thread . Any casual observation of daily life or news items on the telly or newsprint can see its true.
I find it so annoying when MPs   being asked a question start their reply with 'I believe' with such conviction that it sounds like a universal law of physics that they are about to impart .
I don't know how many people are fooled by it but my guess is younger inexperienced voters might be .

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And why is that?

Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!

While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.

[SusanDoris]

Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!

While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.

So the scientific experiments which show that dangerous acids destroy, for instance, flesh,  are accepted by you as truths?

Please do try to give a direct answer.

[Walter]

Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!

While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.

that does not answer the question . all you've done is given a vague description of the properties of some acid how to handle them .

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#28

Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!

While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.

that does not answer the question. all you've done is given a vague description of the properties of some acid how to handle them.

Nearly Sane's question was

Say your child says I would like to drink some sulphuric acid, do you let it?

Why would I want my child to drink something that I have observational evidence for (GCSE, A-Level Chemistry), regarding the damage it causes?

So the scientific experiments which show that dangerous acids destroy, for instance, flesh, are accepted by you as truths?

Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric, hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.

[Walter]

OK, that is an answer
however judging from many of your posts you accept things without 'observational evidence' to be true.
Why is that, Sword?

[Nearly Sane]

Pretty dangerous stuff I seem to remember from my GCSE and A-Level Chemistry!

While we were allowed to handle bottles of the diluted form, we had to wear protective gloves when handling bottles of the concentrated form.

that would be when you were doing science and doing observation. Which is the basis for Floo's acceptance of science as an approach.

[SusanDoris]

author=SwordOfTheSpirit
Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric,
hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.

Okay, but which ones will you reject, or not accept?

By the way, I note that you have cunningly avoided using the words science, scientific, or truth/s, but you see, I did notice that.
Synthetic Dave has been programmed to be a very conscientious reader and doesn’t miss a thing.

[Gordon]

Having done Chemistry, the damage that some acids (e.g. sulphuric, hydrochloric acids) can do has been verified, so I can accept these.

So, since you accept knowledge regarding the actions of acids as being justified: so well justified that you'd be reluctant to test it by drinking some, then presumably you'd agree that the basis of the justification needs to be sound for the associated knowledge claim to be accepted as sound: yes?

[torridon]

So, would you agree that scientific truth, that only has itself as verification, shouldn't be forced on people?

Science doesn't do truth; science suggests.  No-one forces you to go to the doctor for prescription medicines; you can always visit the homeopath or a witch doctor.

[Hope]

Science doesn't do truth; science suggests.  No-one forces you to go to the doctor for prescription medicines; you can always visit the homeopath or a witch doctor.

I agree with the principles of what you say, torri; but I also know of a number of people - including some pretty famous ones who seem to forget that maxim when expounding science and its ability to answer everything - eventually.

[Sebastian Toe]

I agree with the principles of what you say, torri; but I also know of a number of people - including some pretty famous ones who seem to forget that maxim when expounding science and its ability to answer everything - eventually.

Do you have any pretty famous names to regale us with?

[Bubbles]

We are not entitled to our own truths when it goes against the law of the land.

examples would be FGM and there are many others.

Even when the victim is agreeable.

I can't set up a sect that believes LSD opens the doors to paradise, for example, and hand it out to everyone who wants it.

If it's against the law, then no we are not entitled.

[Nearly Sane]

We are not entitled to our own truths when it goes against the law of the land.

examples would be FGM and there are many others.

Even when the victim is agreeable.

So if the law of the land said FGM was OK, I wouldn't by your position be able to object?

[Bubbles]

So if the law of the land said FGM was OK, I wouldn't by your position be able to object?

It's not my position, because I don't choose the law of the land.

But no you wouldn't.

Hitler changed the law in Germany to accommodate murdering millions of Jews.

Many Germans faced being murdered themselves, if they objected.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not my position, because I don't choose the law of the land.

But no you wouldn't.

Hitler changed the law in Germany to accommodate murdering millions of Jews.

Many Germans faced being murdered themselves, if they objected.

so what was your post about FGN saying? Is it a truth that FGM is bad! Is it a truth that what the law says is right?

[Bubbles]

As nasty as it is, if stoning becomes the law in a country, those objecting  often suffer a nasty fate themselves.

Isis in some places rules and makes the law, and for a while in those places beheading becomes acceptable.

[Nearly Sane]

As nasty as it is, if stoning becomes the law in a country, those objecting  often suffer a nasty fate themselves.

Isis in some places rules and makes the law, and for a while in those places beheading becomes acceptable.

That is true, is it truth? You seem entirely confused.

[Nearly Sane]

As nasty as it is, if stoning becomes the law in a country, those objecting  often suffer a nasty fate themselves.

Isis in some places rules and makes the law, and for a while in those places beheading becomes acceptable.

and while we are on this what is the relation to the article from your posts as they seem like complete non sequiturs?

[Bubbles]

so what was your post about FGN saying? Is it a truth that FGM is bad! Is it a truth that what the law says is right?

IMO the truth is that many things are bad but people accept authority from others,that one set of personal truths are correc over others, so these things become acceptable.

The law is not always right, it depends on the lawmakers.

ATM those things are not acceptable in the uk.

Hopefully they never will be.

[wigginhall]

The defense that something criminal, was in obedience to the law was rejected at Nuremberg, I think.   Befehl ist Befehl, orders are orders, was used by various defendants, including Eichmann (in Israel).    It was rejected normally, since individuals can still make moral choices, although at times, it has been allowed, for example, under duress.

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The classic case in WWII was the execution of prisoners, which some German officers justified as direct orders from Hitler, but some of them were still executed after the war. 

[Bubbles]

and while we are on this what is the relation to the article from your posts as they seem like complete non sequiturs?

Groups like Isis do things like they do, because they are working from their own set of personal truths.

People who want a violent version of Sharia law in the uk are working from the assumption that our truths are wrong and theirs are right.

ATM in the uk you can have your own truths provided they don't break the uk laws.

So people can believe whatever they want, provided they don't break the law.

[Nearly Sane]

Groups like Isis do things like they do, because they are working from their own set of personal truths.

People who want a violent version of Sharia law in the uk are working from the assumption that our truths are wrong and theirs are right.

ATM in the uk you can have your own truths provided they don't break the uk laws.

So people can believe whatever they want, provided they don't break the law.

so the law can then be whatever the people have chosen, and people would just have to obey it. Which means if FGM is legal you would just have to agree. You need to try and make a consistent point here as you are contradicting yourself, and also not making any point in relation to the article.

[Bubbles]

so the law can then be whatever the people have chosen, and people would just have to obey it. Which means if FGM is legal you would just have to agree. You need to try and make a consistent point here as you are contradicting yourself, and also not making any point in relation to the article.

Why is it you can never discuss the subject at hand , but degenerate to nit picking?

[Brownie]

Yes!

If we believe the law of the land is wrong, we can work to change it.  That has happened with a few issues in my lifetime, eg capital punishment, laws about homosexuality.   People campaigned relentlessly and demonstrated, winning others over, and eventually the laws were changed.

Other laws with lower profiles, such as the rights of children and young people under majority, also changed bit by bit.

It must be very, very difficult to live in a place where the law is inhumane because the only way to effect change would be by breaking the law.   That happened in apartheid South Africa.  It takes great courage to put your own freedom and maybe your life, in danger.  We are not all the stuff of martyrs made.

Throughout their history, Quakers have risked everything to aid those in need, such as running networks to help slaves to freedom.  I really admire that.

Obviously it's far better if reforms can be effected within the law and with non-violent direct action.