Law School Discussion

#13 - Thinking conceptually required for language

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2005, 09:46:36 PM »
was the principle that we should continue to seek info if there are bad effects or that we should NOT continue to seek info if there are bad effects

I think this may be a question that I tried to bring up in the post-mortem where the answer involved weapons research that could potentially create devastating nuclear weapons.

Ring a bell?

that sounds correct. was one of the other choices about a physician telling a patient a diagnosis when telling him could have a negative impact

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2005, 10:01:07 PM »
that sounds correct. was one of the other choices about a physician telling a patient a diagnosis when telling him could have a negative impact

yeah, agreed.  But i'm thinking...i remember the choice you mentioned with the weapons research. that was along the same lines as the journalist choice in the consensus though.  That is, in both cases, the person stops pursuit of knowledge because somethign bad might happen.

For some reason i thought the principle was actually that you should not stop pursuing knowledge in spite of potential negative effects

if that was in fact the principle, then another respone i recall, whihc was to effect of " a patient should not forgo learning about his diagnosis from his physician even if knwoing it could possibly make hsi condition worse"

sound familiar at all?

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2005, 10:14:36 PM »
For some reason i thought the principle was actually that you should not stop pursuing knowledge in spite of potential negative effects

unless was the nuclear answer you are referring to, random guy, phrased something like " we should continue research in spite of potential effects of deadly weapons..."

in which case it would be correct i think

Re: #13 - Thinking conceptually required for language
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2005, 10:29:55 PM »
bump