(November 21, 2024 at 8:08 am)Belacqua Wrote:(November 21, 2024 at 7:46 am)Sheldon Wrote: No human method can be infallible of course, and the reliability of branches of science vary of course, but this does not mean that they are entirely subjective. Thus science's insistence on keeping an open mind, and that all facts must remain tentative in the light of new evidence, and its ability to admit of an error, and rethink their position in the light of new evidence, is in fact one the methods greatest strengths.
Knowing something was wrong or incorrect, still advances knowledge. Clinging to unfalsifiable or demonstrably incorrect doctrine and dogma has the opposite effect.
Lets remember your claim was that all we had was the subjective opinion of the patient, this clearly is not the case. This is also a complex issue, as we are not just dealing with objective facts, but subjective moral judgments.
I agree that we have to keep an open mind, and just accept that we hold some things to be true despite a lack of objective evidence.
I agree with the first part, but not the second, I need believe nothing for which there is no objective evidence, though what I do with that disbelief is relative of course, as some claims are trivial. I would not go out of my way to express doubt if it served no purpose, and might cause harm.