what are good reasons of believing anything?

[iNow]

Can you elaborate as to what groups you think being a part of constitutes a reason to accept something as proof?

That's not my argument. Whether intentionally or not, you've just strawmanned my position.

 

But then we arrive at my other point, why would one group surviving be worth more than other groups surviving? Why would it be better to develop survival in groups as opposed to more isolated at all? So then why should surviving as a trait of a group be the focal point for belief?

Who said it was? I was referring specifically to the individual.

.

If they were all in fact opinions I would say thanks.

These are, in fact, all opinions.

 

this group belief mechanism you speak of no longer seems to be a "good" reason to believe something

<snip>

it has been a very long time since the overall benefits of assuming a strict group identity has brought more benefits than costs

<snip>

the concept of countries and nationalism creates pride and elitism, leading to wars and disputes, excuses to deny resources so that few may gain power

<snip>

modern nationalism is a mask for trade specialization

[MWresearch]

That's not my argument. Whether intentionally or not, you've just strawmanned my position.

No I asked you a question that you're not answering. If I'm not interpreting correctly then it is up to you to elaborate. You claim being part of a certain group is a reason to believe something because the belief of the group leads to survival, I want to know what groups you're thinking of when you say that.

 

Who said it was? I was referring specifically to the individual.

Exactly, an individual can be killed if they are part of a certain gang or religion, get dragged into a war they did not start or denied opportunities because of race or gender. So, which groups are you actually talking about when you say "a reason to believe is because of survival...?"

 

These are, in fact, all opinions.

Except for the fact that it is recorded history that there have been incredibly large fights with groups of people who disagree on how to govern themselves and their belief as well as the fact that the growth of the global economy is stimulated on the development of new technology to support a growing population at a rate maintained by the efficiency of production achieved only through international trade. If all countries only kept all resources to themselves, the world wouldn't be as developed as it is today.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

No I asked you a question that you're not answering. If I'm not interpreting correctly then it is up to you to elaborate.

I'm not saying group membership constitutes proof or is a valid form of evidence. I'm saying that holding certain beliefs may give you a greater likelihood of survival if it means you're able to be included as a member in a group. I cited that increased likelihood of survival as one potential answer to the question in the OP about a good reason to believe something. Basically, it might be good if it helps you survive, even if that's not a valid reason to consider it true.

 

Is this clear? I feel like I've said this about four times already and in multiple different ways now, but I will gladly clarify further if for some reason you still need it (although, TBH it does feel at this point like you're being intentionally obtuse and unnecessarily abrasive).

 

Exactly, an individual can be killed if they are part of a certain gang or religion, just for being a part of that group.

Hence, the conditional nature of my comments and my continued use of words like "may" and "could" and "sometimes."

 

Except for the fact that it is recorded history that there have been incredibly large fights with groups of people who disagree on how to govern themselves...

Nice job of trying to move the goalposts there, but I'm not gonna bite. The parts I quoted were clearly opinions, and that's the content to which I was referring when I thanked you for sharing them. Edited April 20, 2015 by iNow

[MWresearch]

I'm not saying group membership constitutes proof or is a valid form of evidence. I'm saying that holding certain beliefs may give you a greater likelihood of survival if it means you're able to be included as a member in a group. I cited that increased likelihood of survival as one potential answer to the question in the OP about a good reason to believe something. Basically, it might be good if it helps you survive, even if that's not a valid reason to consider it true.

But when you say "beliefs" which set of beliefs are you talking about? What situation can you cite as an incidence where "believing" a particular thing ultimately leads to an increased likelihood of survival for an individual? Even if you say "yes let's blow up that country and cut off all their heads" to survive getting killed by ISIS, are you not in effect stimulating violence that would ultimately create a much more hostile environment which would directly effect not only you but any offspring you have even if you manage to survive for some increased time on your own? Are you saying we "believe" 1+1=2 and thus those who understand math are more likely to survive? Because then we would need a discussion on empirical observation, whether observation and rules of logic are not subject to interpretation. Or are you referring more the nature of ethics, religion and social affairs, in which case I refer you to known history?

Does the mere act of believing condemn one to inefficiency and being less likely to survive? I see no definite answer in favor of your argument, not in this time period, because a lot of history shows beliefs have caused very large problems that get many people killed and cause massive damage to infrastructure around the world. But as I told you before, perhaps believing in something like a large group as a church allowed more people to survive, even though they could have logically deduced on their own individual basis that it would be more beneficial to their survival to not kill and steal from each other. But, I can't really say the same for today's civilizations.

Edited April 20, 2015 by MWresearch

[Gees]

Members;

 

If I may, I would like to interject some analysis and information into this side argument between iNow and MWresearch.

 

iNow offered 'survival' as a reason to believe something. Survival is an emotion-activated concept. Anyone who does not believe this should consider 'survival instincts', as each of our survival instincts are triggered or activated by some feeling or emotion. So although we can logically think about survival, it works through emotion.

 

This thread is not about belief; if it were, then we could bring Santa Claus into the discussion. It is about the reasons why we should or should not believe logical fallacies. If we accept 'survival' as one of those reasons, then we are agreeing that emotion is a good reason to accept logic, and a valuable tool in determining the worth of a logical fallacy.

 

I can not accept 'survival' as a reason because that would mean that we are basing our logic on emotion, so what we would actually be doing is rationalizing our beliefs.

 

 

MWresearch, whether consciously or unconsciously, understood the connection between emotion and survival and brought the discussion around to religion and social grouping, which are also emotion-laden concepts, as emotion causes religion and social grouping. MWresearch then tried to show where these emotion driven concepts can be bad, but this is where these arguments became invalid.

 

Logic is like math, it shows us consistency and tries to expose what is true and what is not true; it does not give two hoots about what is good or bad. If we try to interject good and bad into our logic, then we are again rationalizing our beliefs.

 

So although MWresearch's arguments are invalid, the point that s/he made is valid. Emotion is not a good reason to accept or reject logical fallacies.

 

Focus, people.

 

Gee

Edited April 20, 2015 by Gees

[iNow]

Survival is an emotion-activated concept. <snip> So although we can logically think about survival, it works through emotion. <snip> I can not accept 'survival' as a reason because that would mean that we are basing our logic on emotion

Sorry, but no. Survival is a measurable outcome, especially when progeny and offspring are considered in the equation.

 

If this thread has now descended to a point where people cannot comprehend my simple point and then further go on to conflate survival with emotion then continued participation is no longer terribly appealing.

 

This thread is not about belief

Perhaps you missed the OP and the thread topic? Here it is again, just so we're clear:

 

What are good reasons for believing anything?

 

bad reasons of believing anything are 4:

1. tradition

2. authority

3. general agreement: crowd opinion

4. private Revelation

 

but what are good reasons of believing anything? any idea?

My response? In some situations, holding a particular belief might grant you membership into a larger group who shares that belief and consequently might also increase your chances of survival due to any benefits membership in that group confers.

 

Perhaps you're confused because you see getting closer to truth as the only valid "good reason," whereas I've taken a much more pragmatic approach to answering the question?

Edited April 21, 2015 by iNow

[MWresearch]

Sorry, but no. Survival is a measurable outcome, especially when progeny and offspring are considered in the equation.

Technically any thought is a measurable outcome since we can observe synaptic patterns that form a thought, but that doesn't mean a thought can't be irrational. It's a measurable outcome that someone at a bar occasionally gets angry and punches someone, but that doesn't mean it was logical to do so. But as I asked, can you cite something where "believing" increases the chances of an individual's genes surviving? If not even lying or holding the same beliefs as ISIS would save one from the inevitable violence it causes, what is viable?

 

My response? In some situations, holding a particular belief might grant you membership into a larger group who shares that belief and consequently might also increase your chances of survival due to any benefits membership in that group confers.

But wouldn't a group that lets people die for not holding a particular belief be more likely to create violent situations, thus decreasing the chances of the genes of the members being passed on indefinitely? Wouldn't any societal structure built from the premise of merely acting on belief inevitably be subject to inevitable failure caused by inaccuracy?

Edited April 21, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

can you cite something where "believing" increases the chances of an individual's genes surviving?

Yes.

[Gees]

iNow;

 

Please consider the following:

 

Sorry, but no. Survival is a measurable outcome, especially when progeny and offspring are considered in the equation.

 

Survival, as you are using it, is an objective description of a subjective concept, or one could say that survival is merely an observation of subjective activity. The actual activity is subjective and works through emotion. Consider that without attraction, want, and maybe a little lust, there would be no progeny or offspring to observe and measure.

 

If this thread has now descended to a point where people cannot comprehend my simple point and then further go on to conflate survival with emotion then continued participation is no longer terribly appealing.

 

OK.

 

ark200, on 08 Apr 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

bad reasons of believing anything are 4:
1. tradition
2. authority
3. general agreement: crowd opinion
4. private Revelation

but what are good reasons of believing anything? any idea?

 

It was pointed out early in this thread that these 4 reasons are logical fallacies that people use to deny the validity of believing something. If we considered any and all beliefs, then we could include Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, space aliens, and religion, so the discussion would have no parameters. No point.

 

My response? In some situations, holding a particular belief might grant you membership into a larger group who shares that belief and consequently might also increase your chances of survival due to any benefits membership in that group confers.

 

So you agree with the conclusions in my prior post, copied below, and are stating that religion is a good reason to believe something.

 

Gee stated in post # 37 of this thread:

So apparently, the only reasons that are acceptable for us to believe something is when we have faith in the things that we make up using imagination and speculation. Did someone move us to the Religion forum when I wasn't looking?

 

 

 

Perhaps you're confused because you see getting closer to truth as the only valid "good reason," whereas I've taken a much more pragmatic approach to answering the question

 

There is nothing wrong with a pragmatic approach, and it can even be quite wise to adopt that position, but I do not see how it relates to logical fallacies or what can be believed. Many people running for office will join a group/church in order to support their positions, and they will avoid groups/churches that may endanger their chances of winning. Does this mean that we can believe them because of their affiliations? I remember reading Bush Jr.'s resume when he was running for a second term. It stated that he was affiliated with three or four Christian churches, but apparently, he missed the "Thou shalt not kill" part of his belief. So joining a group may help a person to survive, but it will not tell me whether or not I can believe anything about him/her.

 

This is the Philosophy forum; you know, love of wisdom? The discipline that studies what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true? If we are not going to get closer to the truth, then WHAT is the point of this discussion?

 

 

Gee

 

[iNow]

As an add on to post #58 to mwresearch: Let me also point out that many others have already done this [work of providing examples of how beliefs might influence group membership and survival] before me. Since you seem oblivious to this fact I encourage you to start with the link below, specifically pages 18, 21-24, 26-27.

 

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Altruism,%20fairness/HenrichplusCommentsJebo2003.pdf

 

Most relevant here (with another specific example following on page 27):

In intergroup competition, different cultural groups may also compete directly for access to resources through warfare and raiding. Cultural practices and beliefs that provide a competitive edge to groups in warfare will proliferate at the expense of traits that make groups less effective in competition (and more likely to be defeated, absorbed or dispersed). Such cultural traits might relate to beliefs about patrilocality, heroism, patriotism, economic cooperation (leading to surplus production), the villainy of foreigners, and the proper forms of social or political organization (or all of these).

Perhaps also explore similarly well established concepts like group selection and determinants of ingroup/ outgroup classifications.

.

This is the Philosophy forum;

Yes, thanks for the reminder that I really am just wasting my time participating here. Edited April 21, 2015 by iNow

[MWresearch]

Yes.

So, go head, cite it.

[iNow]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88535-what-are-good-reasons-of-believing-anything/?p=864750

[StringJunky]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88535-what-are-good-reasons-of-believing-anything/?p=864750

And:

 

 

Prosocial behaviors are voluntary behaviors made with the intention of benefiting others (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). This definition carefully circumvents the potential benefits to the person performing the prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior is often accompanied with psychological and social rewards for its performer. In the long run, individuals can benefit from living in a society where prosociality is common (which, in evolutionary terms, increases reproductive potential)

 

http://www.education.com/reference/article/prosocial-behavior/

[MWresearch]

I see a different between instinctual traits of grouping and a formulated thought of belief.

How can you deduce that an beneficial action is not based on the involuntary transfer of synaptic patterns, that a true free will allows one to act upon a belief?

[iNow]

Another approach is taken by Michael Shermer:

 

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/08/does-belief-help-us-to-survive/

I don’t think religious beliefs are different from any other kind of beliefs: political attitudes, commitments to political parties, or economic ideologies, for example. These are all forms of belief. I think at the base of it is this whole idea that we’re pattern-seeking primates. We connect the dots — A connects to B connects to C — and often, they really are connected, and that’s called associative learning. All animals do it. It’s a biological imperative; we grow new synaptic connections when we learn something.

<snip>

In many ways, it is adaptive, in terms of forming beliefs — we have to form beliefs — and to that extent, those adaptations are still vital to survival.

Regardless, the claim has more than adequately been supported at this point.

[MWresearch]

I will give you some leeway though. Suppose a person can believe something that it is beneficial, but do they not only choose to "believe" it because in their knowledge they have rationally deduced a beneficial outcome, even if it is for another person, thus making it logically based?

[iNow]

.

I see a different between instinctual traits of grouping and a formulated thought of belief.

How can you deduce that an beneficial action is not based on the involuntary transfer of synaptic patterns, that a true free will allows one to act upon a belief?

 

Thanks for yet another reminder of why I tend to avoid the philosophy subforum.

[MWresearch]

Suppose a person "believes" in giving people apples. You ask them why, they may say "because it benefits others." But if it is already a measured outcome that giving apples benefits people, how is it a belief?

 

.
Thanks for yet another reminder of why I tend to avoid the philosophy subforum.

I keep trying to tell you, logic, beliefs, instincts, they are all different, you are being too liberal in your usage of the word "belief" which has lead to logical fallacies such as the one I pointed out. A belief as we were using it implies a lack of reasoning or logic even though it has to be some formulated thought, created at least in part by the transfer of information that is not controllable by the person involved in the interaction. If there is a society that benefits from a particular practice, resulting from a "belief," unless you are arguing it is purely mindless randomness, it can't be purely made up, it cannot have an absence of rationale especially when you consider a system of logical responses that creates the action as governed by the laws of physics, the inherent nature of the system that it has some amount of logical deduction, voluntary or not, it cannot be a pure belief in the sense that you treat it. This topic is more muddied than you are giving it credit for.

In short, according to our current models, a person cannot purely "believe" something, there must logically be some reason for it by the very nature of the brain itself.

Therefore, there is no room for performing an action that lacks the relative evidence that it achieves the desired outcome from a sequence of events within the brain to result in nothing from nothing more than a belief, which includes those of survival. Are you familiar with the "computational theory of the mind?"

So, moving on and back to where we started, using this new approach, is there a "reason" to believe anything? In a strict sense, there is objectively always a physical reason that actions and the transference of electrical signals appears to generate an action based on what may appear to be a lack of evidence, but you cannot "believe" something without some relevance to what is logically estimated to be the truth. There is always some reason to believe something, even if you don't consciously realize it, your brain formulated many smaller patterns of signals to analyze the situation, like "mini-thoughts" which collected to form a single thought. Whatever you "believe," there is some reason for it.

 

The only thing left is quantifying "good" which appears to be completely arbitrary with no definite answer. However, you could and already do define good as certain parameters, but then we would have to somehow use statistics to show such complex actions are more likely to achieve that goal within those parameters, the formulation of which is already the result of logical processes governed by physics. In this physical definition of belief, you could be right in a certain scenario to say that a confidence interval of certain outcomes without proof of their result that is used as a measurement of which action to take could that could lead to a more likely survival, but a purely meta-physical construct in a realm untouched by physics as the original discussion of this topic seemed geared towards is by definition not physically possible as far as our current science shows. So no, you cannot "believe" in something to lead to higher chances of survival in the sense you speak of, there cannot be an absence of logic in a thought.

 

I guess, if you want, you could argue for some meta-physical component of the mind, one which is not governed by physics and carry on the discussion in that manner.

 

I suppose you could also argue for an absence of logic within the universe. Can something that isn't logical actually "happen?" However, I find that problem reduces to "can something outside the parameters of reality happen within the parameters of reality?" to which the answer is no, by the definition of parameters. It's like saying "can I do something I can't do?"

Edited April 21, 2015 by MWresearch

[iNow]

TBH, I'm much more likely to argue for the benefits of ritalin given that last post.

 

[MWresearch]

If you want to allow a self-absorbed perspective of superior intellect to ironically preclude you from learning new information and engaging in a discussion that would challenge your knowledge, then I suppose the topic is done with you. If you would actually like to debate the topic, the rules are clear and you may start to do so at any time.

Edited April 22, 2015 by MWresearch

[Gees]

iNow;

 

Your following comment confused me.

 

.
Thanks for yet another reminder of why I tend to avoid the philosophy subforum.

 

When I log onto the SFN site, the menu that comes up lists Science and Philosophy in different categories. So are you saying that these are subforums? If so, would that make General Philosophy, Religion, and Ethics sub-subforums, as they are under Philosophy? And, of course, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology would also be sub-subforums, as they are under the subforum of Science.

 

What would that make Classic Physics, Inorganic Chemistry, and Evolution? Sub-sub-subforums?

 

Just wondering.

 

Gee

 

If there is anything that I can do to help you remember to not be here, just let me know. I would be willing to send you a PM -- daily.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Ok Everyone - Stop the silliness and off-topic comments! Anything further in this thread that is not on reasons for believing will be hidden or split off to the trash.

 

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

Please consider the following and let me know what you think.

 

I still think that 10Oz was on the right lines when he said "Consistency and repeatability ".

If many independent traditions agree consistently and repeatedly on something, that carries a lot more weight that any single tradition. Ditto for authorities or observations.

 

I agree with you, which would be why I put a + on Ten oz's post. But then we must consider what "consistency and repeatability" means. Many people think that consistency and repeatability means science, but this is not so. Science did not invent consistency and repeatability.

A little boy sitting on the floor stacking his blocks is studying consistency and repeatability. What science did was develop the scientific method, which made consistency and repeatability awesome and turned it into something that can build knowledge. So if that little boy were going to grow up to be a scientist, he would want to test how high he can build his blocks on the carpet, on a tile floor, on the couch cushions, and on his mattress. He would want to test this on a rickety table and on a solid table, test to see what vibration did and at what height. He would want to know if he could set the blocks to make a window and how far he could make the blocks lean before they would fall. Before he was done, he would want to know everything that can be known about stacking blocks.

This is what the scientific method does, it sets parameters and narrows the focus so that one specific thing is being tested, so when the testing is done, the acquired information is extremely accurate. Once some things are learned, then that very accurate information can be used to test more things so that the knowledge builds. For this reason, the most accurate science is the most current tested science. So science that is 100 years old may, or may not, be the best authority; one would want to check and see if there were further developments.

Then one has to consider that the most current information is not always science. I have read too many articles that claim to be science, but have not been tested by anyone other than the person/s making the claim. Without confirmation and testing by another party, the claimed "scientific" information is nothing more than hypothesis and/or observation that has been interpreted -- not actual science.

Then one must consider the limits of science. Science can not test an unknown, because it is unknown, so we turn to philosophy to see what can be learned. Science can not test experience because it is not repeatable. We can not take the cancer out of a person and repeat their getting cancer under different circumstances, so the scientific method does not work on experience. Wisdom and tradition have historically been our guide with regard to experience, but I will save that for another post.

You are, in my opinion, correct in your assertion that information must be weighed. When deciding whether or not to believe authority, one must question how that authority was acquired; what their peer group thinks of that authority and their information; and consider whether or not there is a motivation that could corrupt the information. So we must do our homework before we decide to accept or reject authority.

The reverse is also true. When making a philosophical argument, we must do our homework and be willing to provide the information that will validate any authority that we cite in our arguments.

Gee

[John Cuthber]

I would like to see you make this assertion

"Science can not test experience because it is not repeatable. ...so the scientific method does not work on experience. " in front of a room full of psychologists.

 

And, sadly we do test to see if people get cancer repeatedly- we don't (often) look at one person getting repeated cancers, but we look at whether or not many people in a group that shows the same behaviour (such as smoking) get cancer.

The repetition isn't temporal, but epidemiological analysis is a way of "repeating an experiment" without repeating the experiment.

[Gees]

John Cuthber;

 

Excellent. I am forever writing arguments, in this forum, that people will either accept 'whole cloth' or reject without comment. I suppose that this is because there are so few philosophers in this forum, but it is frustrating for me, because I do not learn as much. It is much preferred for a person to write a rebuttal or at least to question my thoughts, so thank you.

 

Please consider the following:

 

I would like to see you make this assertion

"Science can not test experience because it is not repeatable. ...so the scientific method does not work on experience. " in front of a room full of psychologists.

 

It is not likely that you will see this because, (1) I am disabled and housebound, and (2) I never have a "room full of psychologists" in my home.

 

This is not really a rebuttal as you have not made your thoughts clear. Although I can see a number of different ways that you might consider this, it would be guessing on my part. Are you perchance considering behavioral psychology?

 

And, sadly we do test to see if people get cancer repeatedly- we don't (often) look at one person getting repeated cancers, but we look at whether or not many people in a group that shows the same behaviour (such as smoking) get cancer.

 

Agreed. With the help of computers and data collection, statistics have become a new science -- but is it good science?

 

The association between smoking and cancer is well established -- everybody knows this. I remember having a discussion with my nephew regarding smoking and cancer 20 or more years ago. He told me that new studies indicated that even living with a person who smokes can cause a relative to get cancer, and noted a study that explained that the non-smoking person could be even more susceptible to cancer, as second-hand smoke appeared to be more dangerous. I asked how that was possible, and he stated that there seems to be some immunity for the smoker. I laughed and told him that I had better start smoking to get some immunity and save myself from cancer.

 

Of course, the above is absurd, but how did it get so twisted? Consider that the first association, cancer and smoking, would be called the premise if we were talking philosophy, or you could call it the idea that other ideas are built upon. Since we knew that smoking caused cancer, then people who did not smoke, must have gotten cancer because they were around smokers. When we realized that people got cancer, who did not smoke and no one in their houses smoked, we realized that even casual interaction between smokers and nonsmokers could cause cancer. So then we find that some people can smoke for 40 years and never get cancer, but a casual relationship with them could cause an innocent bystander to get cancer, so the smoker must have some immunity! (chuckle)

 

As I noted before, the scientific method gives us very accurate information that we can build upon -- statistics do not. The above nonsense is caused by a faulty premise -- smoking does not cause cancer. What smoking does is damage the body, so it contributes greatly to mouth and throat cancer as smoking continually burns the mouth and throat. It also causes emphysema and contributes to lung cancer and bad teeth and wrinkled skin and probably some other things. Anything that damages the body on a regular basis encourages cancer.

 

I know of four people who died of cancer. Each one of them smoked, each one of them had a spot on their lungs when they died, each one of them had a Death Certificate that no doubt stated that smoking was a contributing cause in the death. One of them had bladder cancer, which metastasized and caused a spot on the lung in the fourth stage of cancer. One of them had cancer that started in an artery, moved to the small intestine and from there to the liver and caused a spot on the lung in the fourth stage of cancer. Two of them had spots on the lung when first diagnosed, but their biopsies showed that it was a cancer that is caused by asbestos -- one was an electrician, the other a carpenter, who built houses. Both had strong exposure to asbestos which does cause cancer. The information on the Death Certificates would be added to the statistics and contribute to the growing belief that smoking causes cancer -- but in these cases, it would not be true.

 

There are more examples if this isn't enough. The bottom line is that statistical evidence does not follow the strict guidelines of the scientific method, nor does it follow the strict guidelines of philosophy regarding a premise, so it can easily identify a general trend that may or may not be true. For this reason, trying to build a theory on just statistics is problematic. I won't usually even accept statistics as evidence unless I can study the process of gathering the statistics and the motivation and questions that prompt the statistics, then I would probably also want a report from an actuary.

 

Consider that statistical evidence is a standardized objective and collective perspective of experience, but does not actually relate the individual subjective experiences.

 

The repetition isn't temporal, but epidemiological analysis is a way of "repeating an experiment" without repeating the experiment.

 

No it is not "repeating an experiment"; it is gathering and distributing information. This is much like statistical evidence, but it is better because actual scientists are doing the gathering and their motivation is clear -- to identify and fight disease.

 

What is important to remember is where the accuracy comes from. The scientific method finds its accuracy in the testing -- the results. Philosophy finds its accuracy in the premises -- the starting point. A person doing epidemiological analysis knows what they are looking for, they understand the diseases that they study, so their premises are much more valid. When they beat the disease, or at least contain it, they have their tested results. So in this type of study, the guidelines of both, philosophy and science, are observed.

 

Of course, I think it would be nice if they would stop teaching HIV lessons to elementary school children by telling them to "wash their hands". It is amazing how many people think that cleanliness prevents AIDS. It would be better to teach them to not put bandages on other kids and teach high school kids to put a pair of rubber gloves in their glove compartment in case they come upon an auto accident.

 

Gee