Not all physicians are good philosophers, physicists, or psychologists. In this example, we have an opinion piece outside of one’s area of expertise, nothing more. I, on equal grounding, assert that the author is wrong. The burden of proof remains with the author. If we use our rational side to discuss such matters, let’s avoid these subjective and rhetorical appeals, and resume the conversations others began long ago. There is nothing new under the sun.
I would go somewhat farther, in the information age, credentials are always an appeal to authority. Why should I, across the world and as distanced from the institutions that confer titles as anyone could possibly be, care as to the qualifications of the author?
We are constantly attacked by opinions disguised as products of reason. To protect our intellectual integrity, I propose that prefixes to a name should raise doubt in us, instead of belief.
> I, on equal grounding, assert that the author is wrong. The burden of proof remains with the author.
The author, at least, gave relevant analogies from his area of expertise. I don't see any evidence to back up your assertion, or even what you think he's wrong about.
> ...resume the conversations others began long ago.
That's what the author is doing.
> There is nothing new under the sun.
Strange comment to make on HN. The author's exhortation to "to change the world and make it a better place" seems like it should fit right in to the mindset of those who frequent this site.
Unfortunately the biggest questions surrounding public policy inevitably fall into realms science can't answer for us.
How far do we go to resuscitate these victims of tragedy? How far do we go as a society to punish wrongdoing? When does institutionalization become dehumanizing? For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?
As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer and this overt humanism is just so arrogant.
> As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer
While this is true, it's also true that this doctor made actual practical suggestions, like pushing for stoves with smoke sensors and automatic shut-off valves. She's not trying to argue that science has all the answers. She's just pointing out that there are many cases in which science does have answers, and when it does, we should use them.
> reason and compassion over superstition and tradition
The problem is, both reason and compassion (at least as the author wishes to use them) ultimately rest on ethical and moral systems that science itself is incapable of addressing, hence falling into the “superstition and tradition” bucket she derides.
In other words, objective moral values and duties, if they exist, must have a philosophical basis to be real, and that basis is inaccessible to science and reason alone. It requires a worldview that answers basic questions like origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.
It seems she wishes to cut off the legs on which she would seek to stand.
> reason and compassion (at least as the author wishes to use them) ultimately rest on ethical and moral systems that science itself is incapable of addressing
In the sense that science can't tell you which states of the world are "better" or "worse" than others, yes, I agree. Richard Feynman put it this way: science can only answer questions of the form "If I do this, what will happen?" Science cannot answer questions of the form "Do I want that to happen?"
> hence falling into the “superstition and tradition” bucket she derides
I don't think the author is using "superstition and tradition" to refer to ethical and moral beliefs. I think she's using it to refer to erroneous factual beliefs, or methods of addressing problems that don't work. For example, for millennia people tried to prevent disease using various superstitious rituals, none of which worked. Science discovered vaccination, which did. Both views agreed that preventing disease was a good thing; there was no ethical or moral difference there. The difference was between superstitious methods which didn't work, and scientific methods which did.
> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion.
What if scientists don't understand reason? Do they see science is subject to reason, considering that the matter of science is something of which can only be described through a reasoning process? There is no science without reason; there is reason without science.
It is also interesting to see the continual replication nature of philosophical mistakes, even though they have been refuted by decades. The author confuses vaccine for polio as a scientific breakthrough, where that's just the effect. The scientific breakthrough is the study of pathology, which only happens in a total abstract world (the definition of science) -- that's _the_ cause. It's like proclaiming the end of murder just by enacting a law stating murder is over. Reminds me of the mistakes made by Comte's positivism (or Bush's "Mission Accomplished"), the obvious Kant confusion (form over matter), and, why not?, the devilish conclusions made by Heidegger (won't describe them here on purpose and would love to hear otherwise).
Yes, the scientific method is a specific kind of probabilistic reasoning that works remarkably well in practice: you make a guess about how the world works, you design an experiment, and either reject the theory or not. You can only reject a theory, but never confirm it with absolute certainty. Theories that disagree with experiment are rubbish. Theories that pass the test of many experiments are believed to be true only with very high probability. Theories that can't be tested are outside the realm of science.
Which means that as a scientist (aka natural philosopher) one must take _as a given_ that:
* Happenings that are observed in the external world are related (cause and effect exist)
* The principle of sufficient reason applies to all effects (there must be a cause sufficient to explain the effects in all cases)
* Everything is not unique (there are categories and kinds - "all chairs" is a valid statement describing something that exists in reality)
* What is observed is related to reality (the external world is knowable)
There's much more that a natural philosopher must take for granted, just as there are many physical facts that biology takes for granted. One cannot prove these using the scientific method, because the scientific method presupposes these principles.
> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion.
First of all, compassion is a very unreasonable thing. Objectively people who don’t have compassion do better in life. I believe a lot of CEO’s and politicians lack compassion. Also compassion, makes me feel bad more often. Because I have compassion, I felt bad reading about the mother whose children died. If I did not have compassion, it would not bother me.
Now, reading the thrust of the article, it seems the author wants to keep one unreasonable thing (compassion) and throw out another unreasonable thing(religion). However, I do not see any example of principles that can show why one should be favored and another discarded, especially when for many people, their religious duty is what motivates compassion.
However, if you decide to throw out compassion and just stick to reading and evidence, I think you eventually end up with the morality of Thanos.
> Objectively people who don’t have compassion do better in life.
Depends on your definition of "do better".
> it seems the author wants to keep one unreasonable thing (compassion) and throw out another unreasonable thing(religion)
The author is not saying we should throw out religion. She is arguing against "superstition and tradition" in areas where they have failed to solve problems that science has solved.
Nor is she advocating for compassion without reason. Compassion is not there to make you feel bad; it's there to motivate you to use your reason to fix a problem. For example, the author's compassion for the mother whose stove set fire to her apartment motivates her to advocate for stoves with smoke sensors and automatic shut-off valves. If all you do with your compassion is feel bad, you've missed the point.
It is “unreasonable” in the sense that I don’t think you can arrive at compassion purely from reason.
I think morality and compassion are bigger than reason.
And I truly believe that compassion is a good thing and we need more of it in the world, but I don’t think I could convince someone of the benefits of them being compassionate purely through reason.
