Suppose I talk to a priest who says X, and I talk to a scientist who says Y. The next week, I talk to the priest again, and he says X again; but when I talk to the scientist again, he says Z. Obviously, the scientist was either wrong the first time, wrong the second time, or wrong both times!
With that in mind, doesn't it make more sense to trust the priest, who is either right 100% of the time or wrong 100% of the time, than to trust the scientist whose ideas are always changing based on the evidence?
In other words, isn't someone's trustworthiness based on how often he changes his mind, rather than how much evidence is on his side?
2007-03-08
12:49:02
·
27 answers
·
asked by
God, Not Gravity!
1