[QUOTE=CJJ*]
There are, IMO, two methods humans use for determining the validity of knowledge.
The first is whether or not new data is coherent with present knowledge. The most basic example of this is logic, a system of rules that have been developed to deal with concepts completely regardless of what those concepts are. But coherence is broader than simple logic; over their lifetime people (hopefully, and in most cases) build up a coherent mental model of the universe. How they do this is (for the moment) immaterial, but the effect of this is that new data is easily accepted only if it fits this model. When the data doesn’t cohere with the model, the dissonance between the two must be resolved, or the data itself must be ignored/challenged.
This leads us to the second test for determining the validity of knowledge: correspondence with reality. I agree that mental dissonance can lead to an emotional response, and so the knowledge presented by a person whose model is suffering this dissonance may appear to be “emotional knowledge”, but I believe this is a misnomer. Ultimately, when people are calling for a scientific approach, they are asking that the mental dissonance be resolved by appealing to the court of reality, an appeal which, ultimately, will force reasonable persons to adapt their mental model.
According to the theory I’ve just outlined, this may be because things like Internet message boards are far better at determining the coherence of facts than they are at testing their correspondence to reality.
I’ve often seen the SDMB members referred to as a “hive mind”; this is a rather apt description–not because it means everyone is agreeing with each other, but because it models the kind of coherence testing that occurs in anyone’s mental evaluation of their own knowledge.
But such a description includes limitations; I don’t think, for example, this or any other message board as a group is useful for conducting scientific research, since so much of that relies on individuals conducting correspondence-with-reality experiments. The ubiquitous resurrection of threads regarding a semi-scientific question that I dare not name (two key words rhyme with “train” and “breadhill”) is proof of that.
I agree regarding belief systems, if by “reality” you include “the opinions/beliefs of others”. Thus, the discussion value of this board is having your opinion bump up against others–not in a futile attempt to “solve the problem”, but in determining the strengths and weaknesses of your own mental model of reality. You discover your hidden assumptions, personal biases, and shaky conclusions.
If, however, you’re hoping a message board–or the Internet generally–is going to determine whether or not autism is caused by vaccinations, then I can see where you’d think there is little value in these discussions. That question can only be answered after a lot of hard word on the correspondence side, and that means sharp minds dealing with all the evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Disappointed in your answer, it was primarily doctrine. A “method of finding truth” designed by men meant to cover all instances. A totally impossible task, one that can not even be imagined, the totality of all possible circumstances.
Try on the word “God.” Speak it to anyone and you will get their emotional knowledge of the word. Speak it to everyone and you will get every emotional response possible from the human condition.
I wasn’t trying to solve the vaccine problem. But it seems to me if 100 women say their child became Autistic shortly after getting the vaccine someone should take notice. Some answers should come down, not just claims that the vac is ok and didn’t do it. Don’t you agree?
