Andrew, I suppose you were directing me to this paragraph from the article you linked.
Quote:
|
This may be illustrated as follows: Beyond doubt it is sinful to commit suicide by drinking carbolic acid. This, however, is not because the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself, but because it is used with suicidal intent. In such a case, the sin committed is the sin of suicide, not the sin of drinking carbolic acid. Carbolic acid being a material thing cannot be sinful in itself. If its use were sinful in itself, that use would be sinful regardless of the quantity used. If one drop of carbolic acid were to be dissolved in a thousand gallons of water, and one drop of the resultant solution drunk, the drinking of that one drop would be a sin deserving the punishment of eternal death, provided the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself.
|
-J.G. Vos
And obviously cocaine is not a
sinful substance. It is not a moral pimple on the face of the universe that poppies grow in fields. But that was not the point I was raising. Cyanide is considered a lethal substance; cocaine is considered an addictive substance. I am not saying they are therefore bad: I am asking if it has been universally proven that they are such (which obviously in the nature of the case it can't be: in order to prove that cyanide was universally lethal we should have to give it to everybody --and if it did turn out to be, it would still be a failed experiment in that no one would be around to publish an article about it in
Nature). Unless I misunderstood him, that was the standard Josh wanted in order to demonstrate that, say, the rhythms of Swan Lake are relaxing, or
ranchero music is annoying. That is the point I am interested in, and that is why I asked him for clarification.
It is really a question of whether the lack of exhaustive data in induction ought to prevent us from reaching a generalization.