Atheist

[Piamed]

I don't have any paradigms, I have an open mind. It's insulting to suggest that evidence is interpreted by one's personal viewpoint. Are you suggesting that only the chosen ones can see the truth and the rest of us only see what we want to see?



I didn't say that she said that. She wants for nothing now and I know she is happy.

My views are that I make up my own mind based on evidence and don't submit to enforced ideologies

Please be assured that I dont mean or intend to insult anyone. At the very least anyone who has a set of values, beliefs or a perspective has a paradigm. Afterall, thats what a paradigm is. Paradigms and the willingness to embrace new thoughts are not mutually excusive. Paradigms can change but it is not 'normally' possible to exist without one at any given moment in time, although the paradigms will vary according to the prevailing context. Having an open mind refers to ones ability and preparedness to alter ones paradigm based on a particular context. To have no paradigm at any point in time, one would have to have no experience, no perspectives or feeling about a given topic/context. Is that truly possible? I personally dont think so.

That evidence is interpreted according to ones viewpoint or in other words bias is the reason that clinical trials are blinded, i.e. because of researcher interference. Remember, evidence is often subjective. If a glass is filled to 50% of its capacity, is the glass full or is it empty. Surely, the answer is it depends, based upon how one sees things.

I'm not sure what these chosen ones are that you referred to in your post but suggest as do most of the extant literature on this subject, that all people see things according to their paradigms.

Example: If you had 2 individuals with 'open minds' walk around a corner and 1 received a pleasant experience and the other one not so pleasant, would you expect them to go around the same corner again later on without having an perspective on what would be likely to occur to them?

Ones paradigm determines what we see and how we see it.

How can you have evidence that has never been observed?

Evidence and knowledge can be acquired/perceived in many ways. Essentially, if one is a positivist, which many scientists are, they will invariably see things based upon direct observation.

Rationalists will derive their evidence based upon concepts.

Constructionists base their view of evidence on social perceptions and interpretations.

Of course these are gross generalisations.

The bottom line is that not all things that we believe to be true are based upon direct use of our senses.