Not all physicians are good philosophers, physicists, or psychologists. In this example, we have an opinion piece outside of one’s area of expertise, nothing more. I, on equal grounding, assert that the author is wrong. The burden of proof remains with the author. If we use our rational side to discuss such matters, let’s avoid these subjective and rhetorical appeals, and resume the conversations others began long ago. There is nothing new under the sun.
Unfortunately the biggest questions surrounding public policy inevitably fall into realms science can't answer for us.<p>How far do we go to resuscitate these victims of tragedy? How far do we go as a society to punish wrongdoing? When does institutionalization become dehumanizing? For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?<p>As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer and this overt humanism is just so arrogant.
> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion.<p>What if scientists don't understand reason? Do they see science is subject to reason, considering that the matter of science is something of which can only be described through a reasoning process? There is no science without reason; there is reason without science.<p>It is also interesting to see the continual replication nature of philosophical mistakes, even though they have been refuted by decades. The author confuses vaccine for polio as a scientific breakthrough, where that's just the effect. The scientific breakthrough is the study of pathology, which only happens in a total abstract world (the definition of science) -- that's _the_ cause. It's like proclaiming the end of murder just by enacting a law stating murder is over. Reminds me of the mistakes made by Comte's positivism (or Bush's "Mission Accomplished"), the obvious Kant confusion (form over matter), and, why not?, the devilish conclusions made by Heidegger (won't describe them here on purpose and would love to hear otherwise).
> Public policy and morality should be the domain of reason, evidence, freedom, experience, and compassion.<p>First of all, compassion is a very unreasonable thing. Objectively people who don’t have compassion do better in life. I believe a lot of CEO’s and politicians lack compassion. Also compassion, makes me feel bad more often. Because I have compassion, I felt bad reading about the mother whose children died. If I did not have compassion, it would not bother me.<p>Now, reading the thrust of the article, it seems the author wants to keep one unreasonable thing (compassion) and throw out another unreasonable thing(religion). However, I do not see any example of principles that can show why one should be favored and another discarded, especially when for many people, their religious duty is what motivates compassion.<p>However, if you decide to throw out compassion and just stick to reading and evidence, I think you eventually end up with the morality of Thanos.