Eduk wrote:Let us just say that when I think of reason and sense and logic I think of critical thinking and the scientific method. In the scientific method all theories must be testable and predictive. My example of cutting off hands is testable. In this regard it is a good theory [...] Although in real life I very much doubt you would be prepared to test my hand theory you can pretend that you are being intellectually honest.
Theories about what will happen if one cuts one's hand off with a power saw can be tested. Many people may believe they will bleed. Most of these people have never actually tested this. There may be many reasons for believing this, but scientific method is not genuinely one of them unless they have scientifically tested this. They have faith that they will bleed.
It is conceivable that butterflies may come out instead. However, not many people are claiming they believe this. The belief that one will bleed is not widely disputed or challenged. There is not much pressure to test this theory, so it is not commonly tested. However, if some pressure is applied ...
If Mary believes she will bleed and John believes she won't, he may challenge her to prove it. She can test this by cutting off her hand with a power saw. However, she may also have other beliefs that make it difficult for her to test, including: this will cause her a lot of pain; and losing her hand will make life more difficult for her. She may decide that she values keeping her hand more than being intellectually honest.
If she decides to cut her left hand off and she happens to bleed, John may acknowledge that she was correct on this occasion, but maybe she was just lucky. What if she was to test this again?
Mary may think that if she bleeds when she cuts off her left hand then she has more reason to believe she will also bleed if she cuts off her right hand. However, not much can be scientifically concluded from a single test. To illustrate this. John tosses a coin with his left hand. It comes up heads. He tosses a coin with his right hand. It comes up tails.
If Mary cuts off her right hand, how certain can anyone be that she will bleed again?
Having witnessed that Mary bled the first time, and not convinced she will bleed if she tests this again, John now believes she may or may not bleed - there's a chance she will bleed again and there's a chance she won't - perhaps depending on a variety of factors. He tells Mary if she is so sure that she will bleed again, he is willing to make a bet with her. If she cuts off her right hand and bleeds again, he will pay for best medical treatment to reattach both her hands, and give her $100million. If she doesn't bleed again then he keeps her right hand.
Is this a good bet for Mary?
Let's say Mary decides to accept the bet, she bleeds again, and John honours their bet. While she is recovering from hand reattachment surgery, John visits her and acknowledges that she was correct both times, but wonders if anything can be scientifically concluded from these two tests with regards to whether he will bleed if he cuts off his hand with a power saw. He doubts he will bleed. He is willing to test this and asks if she is willing to bet double or nothing regarding the $100million she won off him.
Is this a good bet for Mary?
At this point it may be worth asking: How well do we know John? Have we assumed anything about him that may not be true?
Any robots reading this may be thinking they have less reason to believe they will bleed if they cut their hands off.
Eduk wrote:By the way I would rather hear from lark_truth about his experiences. For example I don't see a lot of anti Mormonism.
Has there not been a fair amount of anti Mormonism expressed in this discussion?
This does help to suggest the first questions that can be asked in response to the topic question: Are people really so against the Mormons? Are they really against Mormons, or just Mormonism? Is the opening question assuming anything that isn't true?