Can the Judicial System Proscribe a correct belief system?
I read an article which I got from kottke and had some thoughts. First, what were the parents thinking? Second, is science really the prime explanation for everything?
Okay, so, the kid didn't need to die. The parents could have done any number of things to save her and we want to tell them that they were stupid. Were they?
It's an often touted truism that Diversity is good. However, the underlying assumption here is that science knows best and if you don't listen to it then your are bad and should be punished. In fact, the justice system appears to be placing a requirement on the general populace. It you don't know enough science to talk science at your defense, then you are criminally negligent.
So, if you're considering an alternative approach to thought, be careful. Depending on faith for anything concrete is illegal-- science has proven you won't get results and that's negligent. That means acupuncture is insufficient too, right? I mean, science hasn't proven it to be useless, but experts can tell you how science is better. The courts will tell you that using a lesser solution when a life is on the line is unacceptable.
Codifying common sense is a pretty dangerous thing. I agree that the parents screwed up big time, but I also think they have the right to pursue a belief system outside the status quo. So, were they stupid, or were they insufficiently main stream? Do we want to legally require people to be scientists?
Okay, so, the kid didn't need to die. The parents could have done any number of things to save her and we want to tell them that they were stupid. Were they?
It's an often touted truism that Diversity is good. However, the underlying assumption here is that science knows best and if you don't listen to it then your are bad and should be punished. In fact, the justice system appears to be placing a requirement on the general populace. It you don't know enough science to talk science at your defense, then you are criminally negligent.
So, if you're considering an alternative approach to thought, be careful. Depending on faith for anything concrete is illegal-- science has proven you won't get results and that's negligent. That means acupuncture is insufficient too, right? I mean, science hasn't proven it to be useless, but experts can tell you how science is better. The courts will tell you that using a lesser solution when a life is on the line is unacceptable.
Codifying common sense is a pretty dangerous thing. I agree that the parents screwed up big time, but I also think they have the right to pursue a belief system outside the status quo. So, were they stupid, or were they insufficiently main stream? Do we want to legally require people to be scientists?