Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

eric von kruse

Regulars
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Public Domain

eric von kruse's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I understand that my premise is assuming the hospitals as they are currently, which is not regulation free, and therefore not directly comparable to an unregulated health industry. But are you suggesting that unjustified billing is caused by government regulation? What is that argument substantiated upon? I am partially playing devils advocate to understand the greater principle. It's hard for me to imagine that hospitals would not participate in billing like many taxi cab services did in major cities before prices were mandated (although I am apposed to this). The difference is that when life is at stake you don't have time to research billing practices of all the local hospitals - you pick the closest one.
  2. I must first say that I am a staunch laissez-faire capitalist. A couple of years ago my wife needed to go to the hospital while we were on vacation in Las Vegas. She was stabilized, we finished the vacation and went home. The bill was outsourced, as is typical, and we recieved a bottom line dollar amount. Our insurance covers certain aspects of hospital cost and we are required to pay the rest. Because the amount was not itemized it was impossible to determine what the insurance should cover. After months of repeated requests to the hospital and the billing company for a breakdown, they would still not provide it and finally we paid the full amount ourselves but not before it showed up on our credit rating. I do not agree with government regulations (forcing the hospital to itemize the bills) but how else could one be protected from such unethical practices. Furthermore, hospital transactions are much different from going to a retail store and agreeing on a price for a product and making an exchange - essentially, in a hospital, you are giving a blank check without any justification for cost (even after the fact). Eric Von Kruse
  3. Here's a perfect example. (true story, ironic huh) I met an old German woman who says she was in Germany during WWII. She claimed that the Americans were just as bad as the Russians and the Germans with regard to rape and looting. She said that stories of German citizens wanting to be in American control, not Russian, is propoganda by the US media. Now I happen to be a novice war history and this contradicts everything I've learned about the US liberating Germany. I can see how the media would not want to upset the "Greatest Generation" with airing stories of these rapes, I can see how this lady wants to discredit the liberators to bring everyone down to the same moral level, on the other hand I also know that war does horrible things to everyone involved. Finally I concluded to dismiss this lady's account because in my opinion there are too many reasons why she would lie, or fudge the truth about this. Nontheless, the question still remains, what is a rational basis for believing or not believing second hand information? Would it ever be rational to believe her story on her testimony alone, knowing that I will never amass enough German WWII survivors to validate or dispute her testimony?
  4. First, "a whole lot" is abiguous and should be rejected. Secondly, "not opinion, but observed fact" opens the question - how do you know what is observed fact, and what is opinion? Is it possible that the principle goes along these lines: If the source is rationally concluded to be credible and the information does not contradict your knowledge, you can conclude that the information is true. Note: this does not address what to do if it does contradict your knowledge.
  5. I do think it is possible to be certain within an empirical basis. But when it is not my experience, is it ever rational to rely on others spoken or written word to attain %100 certainty. Let me illustrate. -I own a house, I am %100 percent sure that it exists, it's made of brick, and resides in a city in the US, among countless other things. I know this because I have experienced it. -I have read about a country in Africa named Chad. I have seen published maps the visually define the country of Chad. But I have never been there. Is it fair to say that after integrating the idea of Chad with all my other knowledge, if there are no contradictions, I can be %100 percent certain that Chad exists? Furthermore, what if we weren't talking about a country that map publishers stake their reputation on the accuracy of it's maps. What if my friend fighting in Afghanistan tells me that 3 people died in his unit? I wouldn't think he would purposely lie about that, so would I be justified in saying to someone else "3 people died in Xs unit"? Or would I only be justified I saying "My friend, fighting in Afghanistan told me 3 people died in Xs unit".
  6. I'm at a loss to find the quote. I'm fairly new to Objectivism and in the past 7 months have read: VOS, The Return of the Primative, Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Objectivist Newsletter '66-'71 (I've read about half), and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. For the discussions purposes, let me refrase the first part of my statement - What Objectivist criterion should be applied to second hand knowledge with regard to certainty? Shooting from the hip, I would say that accepting second hand knowledge with %100 certainty would not be acceptable.
  7. I recall Rand saying that no one should accept second hand information alone as true. I feel that I'm missing something. Here's some scenerios to illustrate my delima: FYI - I have never been to Chad. 1. If I view a map with the country of Chad, I shouldn't recognize this as fact? 2. If another person explains that he spent a summer in Chad, I shouldn't accept his assertion as fact of Chad's existence? 3. If I travel to Chad, I can accept that Chad exists. I'm looking for the Objectist view of certainty, specifically in regard to second hand knowledge. It seems that Rand was proposing that all second hand knowledge is contengent, even if it does not contradict the rest of your knowledge.
×
×
  • Create New...