[chub500]

Unfortunately the biggest questions surrounding public policy inevitably fall into realms science can't answer for us.

How far do we go to resuscitate these victims of tragedy? How far do we go as a society to punish wrongdoing? When does institutionalization become dehumanizing? For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?

As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer and this overt humanism is just so arrogant.

[pdonis]

> As a doctor, this author should know these are questions her field cannot answer

While this is true, it's also true that this doctor made actual practical suggestions, like pushing for stoves with smoke sensors and automatic shut-off valves. She's not trying to argue that science has all the answers. She's just pointing out that there are many cases in which science does have answers, and when it does, we should use them.

[TimTheTinker]

She does that, but she goes further:

> reason and compassion over superstition and tradition

The problem is, both reason and compassion (at least as the author wishes to use them) ultimately rest on ethical and moral systems that science itself is incapable of addressing, hence falling into the “superstition and tradition” bucket she derides.

In other words, objective moral values and duties, if they exist, must have a philosophical basis to be real, and that basis is inaccessible to science and reason alone. It requires a worldview that answers basic questions like origin, meaning, morality, and destiny.

It seems she wishes to cut off the legs on which she would seek to stand.

[pdonis]

> reason and compassion (at least as the author wishes to use them) ultimately rest on ethical and moral systems that science itself is incapable of addressing

In the sense that science can't tell you which states of the world are "better" or "worse" than others, yes, I agree. Richard Feynman put it this way: science can only answer questions of the form "If I do this, what will happen?" Science cannot answer questions of the form "Do I want that to happen?"

> hence falling into the “superstition and tradition” bucket she derides

I don't think the author is using "superstition and tradition" to refer to ethical and moral beliefs. I think she's using it to refer to erroneous factual beliefs, or methods of addressing problems that don't work. For example, for millennia people tried to prevent disease using various superstitious rituals, none of which worked. Science discovered vaccination, which did. Both views agreed that preventing disease was a good thing; there was no ethical or moral difference there. The difference was between superstitious methods which didn't work, and scientific methods which did.

[eyelidlessness]

> For that matter - what is a disorder versus simply a difference in human beings?

What difference between humans isn’t disorder for others?