One's Own Theory

Tram law writes:Well, why does any belief have to have empirical evidence for it to be true?

And if that is true, wouldn't it actually render almost all of humanity's cultural and moral beliefs invalid?

Why does any piece of knowledge or cultural or moral belief/philosophy have to have an academic study before something can be considered valid?

Tram law writes:An example of cultural and moral beliefs would be that children must be protected trumps the right of individuals

or within American political parties, the existence of partisan politics.

So would a saying like "Racism exists" just be made up shit? Why would evidence be needed to show that it exists?

And what would be the evidence need to show that it exists?

Tram law writes:Well, let's take something like say patriotism. We can take a claim like "there are people who are very loyal to their country".So, why would this need empirical evidence to be true?

Tram law writes:Yes this one is a tough one because it contains both cultural beliefs and moral beliefs at the same time. Not all cultures believes this way.In contrast, some Muslim countries marry their girls off at the age of fifteen through arranged marriages and see nothing wrong with it and don't see it as abuse while child advocates (in America at least) would more than likely call it child abuse and want to take the child away.

Then wouldn't it be impossible to determine that some people are very loyal to their country?

And if it's impossible to determine it, then wouldn't that mean it can not be true?

Tram law writes:Well, first you'd have to define knowledge.For me there's personal knowledge from experience

as well as book knowledge or education.

But the thing is sometimes personal knowledge can be just a belief.

Tsq writes:We could make this more empirical. We could set up a test where someone was offered one of two choices. They could have 100 dollars or denounce their country. Only the interviewer would be privy to each individual's choice and their identity would be kept private so there are no social ramifications. People who forgo personal gain in order to not disparage their country would be considered loyal.

Tram law writes:A theist who can't understand that an atheist has a lack of belief in God so he calls them all agnostic because that's what he or she knows.Does that work?

Tram law writes:There was also a famous test that bore this out. I can't remember the proper name of it, but it had people who would apply electrical shock to people if they were told to do so. However, it wasn't real electricity and the person hooked up to the machine receiving the "shock" was acting in a lot of pain. The people were told that there wouldn't repercussions if they used this device to discipline somebody for giving a wrong answer.The object of the test was to determine why people follow a tyrannical government and allow things like genocide to happen.The result was that when the people were told they would not receive any repercussions, they were more willing to apply the electricity at very high and almost fatal levels.

Taq writes:It means that you are not a loyal person.