We are a question asking people

[selek]

Isn't it intriguing that- given his obsession with evidence and rationalism- Arc consistently commits an elementary error guaranteed to earn him a failing mark in a junior high science course?

He continues to conflate "fact" with "truth".

While there is an inescapable overlap between the two, no one who didn't sleep through the eighth grade would be foolish enough to equate them.

Science is the search for fact, not "Truth".

Further, it is rather arrogant, frankly dismissive, and utterly dishonest for you to assume that we have not looked at our faith- and the evidence for and against it- as objectively as you.

[Arc]

Isn't it intriguing that- given his obsession with evidence and rationalism- Arc consistently commits an elementary error guaranteed to earn him a failing mark in a junior high science course?

He continues to conflate "fact" with "truth".

While there is an inescapable overlap between the two, no one who didn't sleep through the eighth grade would be foolish enough to equate them.

Science is the search for fact, not "Truth".

Further, it is rather arrogant, frankly dismissive, and utterly dishonest for you to assume that we have not looked at our faith- and the evidence for and against it- as objectively as you.

selek,

As you point out, fact and truth are not the same. Please note that the word "truth" appears in quotation marks in my post.

Given your stated recognition that there is an 'inescapable overlap between the two', I would only ask if you really understand the use of facts and the concept of "weight of evidence" in the determination of what is true and in decision making in general.

[ERMD]

What happpened to consideration of physical data or facts in evidence?

Why is consideration of the facts absent from your process for determining the validity of truth claims?

If indeed you are an ERMD (and I would guess that you are), and make decisions as you describe in your post, I hope that I never have the ocassion to meet you in a professional setting.

Ah, the old personal attack. Nicely done.

You neither know me nor anything about my training, experience, or profession. Suffice it to say that I know how to spell "occasion", and the over 100,000 people I have treated over the years are by and large doing rather well.

The more one learns about physiology, pharmacology, biochemistry, histology, immunology, mechanisms of disease, microbiology, neurophysiology, physics, organic chemistry, genetics, physical chemistry, and the other fields of study through which I plowed on my way to my degrees, the more one realizes that "facts" change, whereas "truth" does not. Somehow I sense we have ventured into waters that are a bit too deep for your manner of reasoning. So be it.

[ERMD]

Not necessarily. Any set of pertinent facts would serve to illustrate the point.

For example:

Arc is rushed from the scene of a near fatal car accident to the ER by ambulance. He is in bad shape.

ERMD is assigned to Arc's case.

EMT personnel provide ERMD with Arc's vital signs data and a brief medical history gathered from Arc on the ride to the hospital.

In order to determine the "truth" regarding Arc's condition, ERMD sets the available physical data aside and resorts to the process described in his post.

If this weren't such a pitiful attempt at a rebuttal, it may actually be funny.

I've worked for years in Level 1 trauma centers. So far, the system seems to do OK.

Tell me, when a patient has a traumatic arrest from blunt force, is a thoracotomy beneficial? If so, what is the recommended approach? If not, in what situations has it been demonstrated to be efficacious?

I'll patiently await your witty and erudite response...

(ETA: This may seem nit-picky, but what the heck. If it were a near-fatal accident, the transporters would likely be Paramedics, not EMTs. There is a difference, you know. Oh wait, you probably didn't.)

[Deborah]

There is a passage in Abraham that caught my attention:

And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. (Abraham 1:2)

Abraham had to seek for the blessings of the fathers. He apparently wasn't taught at home as was Nephi. The point is he knew there was something greater that he could have. I know that when I found the church I had been seeking for the truth as well. I pretty much gave up because I couldn't find the answers in the religions I had been studying. But having "sought", the Lord answered in a way not anticipated.

Once again an illustration of how the Lord works and why asking questions is important if we want to gain further understanding of any principle.

[Arc]

If this weren't such a pitiful attempt at a rebuttal, it may actually be funny.

I've worked for years in Level 1 trauma centers. So far, the system seems to do OK.

ERMD,

Just so we are clear, the "system" we are talking about, as you described it, is:

Truth can be verified by a three-part test:

What do the scriptures say about it?

What do modern-day (particularly the present) prophet(s) say about it?

What does the Holy Spirit confirm in one's heart and mind?

When those three are in agreement, there is no possibility for error.

Is this really the process you use to determine the truth or reality in your profession?

[ERMD]

ERMD,

Just so we are clear, the "system" we are talking about, as you described it, is:

Is this really the process you use to determine the truth or reality in your profession?

Need I repost my questions before we continue?

[Arc]

Need I repost my questions before we continue?

If you are referring to the question about treatment options for blunt force trauma, there is no need.

Unless you wish to engage in a round of "I know more about your profession than you know about mine", you have made my point and I think we are done.

[ERMD]

If you are referring to the question about treatment options for blunt force trauma, there is no need.

Unless you wish to engage in a round of "I know more about your profession than you know about mine", you have made my point and I think we are done.

Since you appear to be incapable of abstract thought, I will spell this out for you.

The purpose of my replies was twofold. First, your snide remark about having the "ocassion" to meet me in a professional setting was juvenile and uncalled for. Second, your little scenario was used to illustrate two points. The first is, accumulating facts in general is typically not terribly difficult. What can be difficult is keeping up with the changing "facts". For example, for years, as demonstrated by Maddox and Fischer (and Rosen independently), the standard of care for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma was diagnostic peritoneal lavage. With the advent of high speed CT scanners, the standard of care is now CT, as it better evaluates the retroperitoneum as well as having the advantage of staging solid organ injury. This in many cases will allow to forego unnecessary laparotomy. The point being, "facts" are a moving target and will change as knowledge increases. The same is true in most all scientific disciplines. The second point is, in specific disciplines, "facts" are frequently privy only to the few who specifically pursue them. You could have googled all you wanted, and it would have taken a LONG time to come up with correct answers to the appropriate management of traumatic arrest. Those "facts" are hard to come by for most.

Truth, on the other hand, is eternal, and is available to all. The way to arrive at it is as I described initially. Reject it if you will. Not my problem.

1 Cor 2:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man