I know, and I’m guessing it will be popular. I believe Schwartz first cluttered the issue with science (not all of which he fully understands) and this is largely what started this debate.

I think you badly misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. I don’t believe there is any terminal value to what Schwartz or anyone else thinks is moral behavior. If you want to call that arrogant, fine. But technically, it’s amoral.

Implicitly, Rafe thinks I should take Schwartz’s information into account in my own behavior because it has instrumental value in achieving my own terminal goals (many of which he shares).

So I am not asserting testing is the most important thing. I am asserting that testing is required to settle the question of whether there is any instrumental value to Schwartz’s assertion.

Obama is doing the right thing by overturning. You can’t entirely legislate or incentivize morality. At some point we must call people responsible for their decisions and judgment calls, and NOT let them off the hook with catchall protections. Not only must we call people responsible, but we must leave some room for moral judgment lest we train people out of thinking critically and exercising compassion.

Will this automatically lead to practical wisdom? No, that comes from experience and role models. But without any personal responsibility left on the table, it can’t develop. And if the penalties for breaking the rules are incommensurately large relative to the situation, practical wisdom will be trumped by self-interest.

A quick point about moral conviction passes: Forcing a health worker to do something against their conscience is just as silly as giving them cover for breaking the rule that violates their conscience.

Perhaps we don’t think the morality of the request (to test) is really relevant. I’ll concede arrogance if need be.

Considering what Schwartz is proposing, I really don’t think a test is too much to ask. He’s already sold everyone with a 20 minute talk. Before his ideas spread like wildfire is the proper position not to challenge them?

(Obama undoes rule to protect moral conviction, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/politics/28web-abort.html?_r=1&hp )

You simply refuse to discuss the morality of your position – that doesn’t make it less of a moral stand. It simply makes it an arrogant stand.

You have to show us why testing is so important. It’s one thing to discover positivism and to know we can test things. It is another to claim that testing is the most important thing to do.

That is what you have to demonstrate – for your argument to be logically consistent – with a test!

I demand to test a proposition to know if it’s right. The application of that knowledge is what’s moral or immoral.

In demanding that you test a proposition, you have taken a moral position. Yet, you don’t put your demand to a moral test.

By your own standards, you must define a test for the moral position you have taken.

Is your position moral?