According to Brent Meeker:
> I don't think that's a good example of "not considering the evidence". 
> Ignorance is a relative term - he didn't know a child was about to run out in 
> the street, but he (and most people) know there are children in residential 
> areas and that they may run out in the street.  So we criticise him for not 
> taking this into account.  If he were truly ignorant of these possibilities, 
> we'd excuse him.

You're right, almost everyone knows there are
kids in a residential neighborhood.  But what I'm talking about is
a certain kind of personality which presupposes that if he doesn't
see kids, and he happens to be in a hurry, there's less need to
slow down.  What I'm trying to say is that many people erroneously
equate absence of evidence (which can be the result of simply not
paying attention) either with evidence of absence or a reduced need
for precaution.

>But you don't want to be so precautionary that you never risk doing
>harm, because then you'd never do good either.  You'd never drive
>in residential areas at all.

Medicine's prime dictum is "do no harm".   While accidents happen,
I don't think it's unrealistic to expect doctors to value their
patients, especially nonconsenting children, as more than lab animals
and passive objects for arbitrary and culturally driven medical
intervention.  There's a legal standard for reckless endangerment
which ought to be applicable here.

The current medical fad is "evidence based medicine", yet no one
seems to be asking what they were practicing before, and why?

Here's an example of medicine's recklessness and profound lack of
insight into its own ignorance:

Apologies to the people on this list who are far more knowledgeable
about complexity than I.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to