I was berated by an attendee at a conference for young people who took exception to my advice to make doubt the guiding principle of for decision and action

An Ethical Rule for Democratic Action I do not ask you to accept my views without argument. Where there is conflict we must both be prepared to enter into a sincere dialogue in the hope of mutual understanding. All of us must be prepared to defend our viewpoints but also to change in the face of convincing counterevidence or perceptive argument. Without such prior agreement all discussion is essentially pointless and no understanding is possible. The question is on what basis should views either be maintained or changed. There is a simple recipe for civilised behaviour and it is to find a solid bedrock upon which all people – independent of race, colour or creed - can come to some mutually agreed position and course of action. The next question is on what philosophical basis can such a bedrock be constructed. Historically only one has evolved and it is the one delineated by the scientific method which is based on doubt and questioning, reason and rational thought. It works as indicated by the discoveries an inventions which underpin our modern way of life. They work in every country.

All other philosophies that make such claims clearly do not pass the test of Universal acceptance as they are often specific to one race, one colour or one creed. And certainly there are a plethora of philosophies vying for power over people all totally incapable of satisfying this simple and sensible criterion of Universally accepted evidence. There is also no Universal acceptance that any work. All evidence, when subjected to careful, disinterested scrutiny disappears and becomes buried in the noise level. Correct findings behave quite differently when subjected to careful scrutiny – their veracity becomes ever more apparent. This is the fundamental difference between science and all other philosophies. Thus there is no way for a disinterested observer to decide which of the others if any has substance.

liono wonder that there is one viewpoint which works – the scientific one which is the only one whose adherents are distinguised by and the rest a multitude of disparate ideologies all recognised by the lack of any basic justification agreed across the global boundaries. None is more justifiable than the othe, Without evidence however I cannot expect you to change, nor vice versa. Where one’s ideals govern in any way the other’s actions we are honour-bound to enter such a dialogue. Only those unable to defend their position with rational and democratic argument need fear anything. This fear is usually evident in anger in the face of critical and sceptical questioning. It is interesting to recognise that this fear is often because some deeply held conviction is being undermined. Many seem to find it difficult to accept that all we have is all Beware – when these conditions are not met as it results in a plethora of personal justified by personal which are unjustifiable other than by personal irrational argument.

However where a philosophy has powers ideals govern in any way the other’s actions we are honour-bound to enter such a dialogue. Only those unable to defend their position with rational and democratic argument need fear anything. This fear is usually evident in anger in the face of critical and sceptical questioning. It is interesting to recognise that this fear is often because some deeply held conviction is being undermined. Many seem to find it difficult to accept that all we have is all Beware – when these conditions are not met as it results in a plethora of personal justified by personal which are unjustifiable other than by personal irrational argument.