My firefighter challenge

[Strathos]

A large wildfire is approaching a man's house. A group of firefighters warn him that his house is in the path of the fire, and that he should evacuate to a safe location.

The man tells them that he doesn't believe them - there is no fire and no threat, and he is staying put.

The firefighters then spend the next several days and nights working around the clock to contain the fire, and finally manage to put it out, just before it reaches the man's yard.

The man then tells them 'See, I told you my house wasn't going to burn down. There was never any fire. You were making up the entire thing to try to scare me. This is why I don't trust firefighters'.

Is this man's behavior and attitude reasonable?

 

[pitabread]

Is this supposed to be a loosely veiled analogy for Christian apologetics? Or is it an analogy for science denial?

It seems like it could be interpreted either way.

 

[Strathos]

Is this supposed to be a loosely veiled analogy for Christian apologetics? Or is it an analogy for science denial?

It seems like it could be interpreted either way.

It's an analogy for a certain poster's attitude towards certain scientific predictions.

 

[pitabread]

It's an analogy for a certain poster's attitude towards certain scientific predictions.

Gotcha.

 

[JIMINZ]

Brings to mind the man that refused to leave his property on Mt. St. Helins before it blew up.

 

[dgiharris]

A large wildfire is approaching a man's house. A group of firefighters warn him that his house is in the path of the fire, and that he should evacuate to a safe location.

The man tells them that he doesn't believe them - there is no fire and no threat, and he is staying put.

The firefighters then spend the next several days and nights working around the clock to contain the fire, and finally manage to put it out, just before it reaches the man's yard.

The man then tells them 'See, I told you my house wasn't going to burn down. There was never any fire. You were making up the entire thing to try to scare me. This is why I don't trust firefighters'.

Is this man's behavior and attitude reasonable?

I don't like this analogy at all. If you don't mind I'd like to change it to better facilitate a discussion:

A company claims to have discovered a large concentration of radon gas in a neighborhood and subsequently government health inspectors warn everyone in the neighborhood that they need to get their houses tested for Radon Gas levels. Ironically, the only company who can inspect and treat the problem is the same company that claims to have discovered the gas. The inspection costs $500 and treatment/removal costs $5500.

One homeowner refuses to have any tests done because he doesn't smell, see, or feel anything. He and his entire family stretching back 75 years have lived in that house and in his words, "everyone is fine". Statistically speaking, his household suffers from cancer at a 15% higher rate than the national average.

Is it reasonable for this homeowner to refuse to have any tests done?

 

[bhsmte]

A large wildfire is approaching a man's house. A group of firefighters warn him that his house is in the path of the fire, and that he should evacuate to a safe location.

The man tells them that he doesn't believe them - there is no fire and no threat, and he is staying put.

The firefighters then spend the next several days and nights working around the clock to contain the fire, and finally manage to put it out, just before it reaches the man's yard.

The man then tells them 'See, I told you my house wasn't going to burn down. There was never any fire. You were making up the entire thing to try to scare me. This is why I don't trust firefighters'.

Is this man's behavior and attitude reasonable?

If i have reliable evidence the fire fighters claims are correct, it is just classic psychological denial.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is it reasonable for this homeowner to refuse to have any tests done?

IF he lives alone, then it may be reasonable, depending upon his motivation. If he views government interference as a greater evil than the potential of a shortened lifespan, then his decision is rational and logical. If he lives with others then he is placing their lives at risk for personal reasons. That might still be reasonable from his viewpoint, but it would be morally reprehensible.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't like this analogy at all. If you don't mind I'd like to change it to better facilitate a discussion:

A company claims to have discovered a large concentration of radon gas in a neighborhood and subsequently government health inspectors warn everyone in the neighborhood that they need to get their houses tested for Radon Gas levels. Ironically, the only company who can inspect and treat the problem is the same company that claims to have discovered the gas. The inspection costs $500 and treatment/removal costs $5500.

One homeowner refuses to have any tests done because he doesn't smell, see, or feel anything. He and his entire family stretching back 75 years have lived in that house and in his words, "everyone is fine". Statistically speaking, his household suffers from cancer at a 15% higher rate than the national average.

Is it reasonable for this homeowner to refuse to have any tests done?

You dont smell or feel radon gas. The other thing is, it is not difficult to have independent tests for radon.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A large wildfire is approaching a man's house. A group of firefighters warn him that his house is in the path of the fire, and that he should evacuate to a safe location.

The man tells them that he doesn't believe them - there is no fire and no threat, and he is staying put.

The firefighters then spend the next several days and nights working around the clock to contain the fire, and finally manage to put it out, just before it reaches the man's yard.

The man then tells them 'See, I told you my house wasn't going to burn down. There was never any fire. You were making up the entire thing to try to scare me. This is why I don't trust firefighters'.

Is this man's behavior and attitude reasonable?

Sounds like the popular response to Y2K...

 

[dgiharris]

You dont smell or feel radon gas. The other thing is, it is not difficult to have independent tests for radon.

true...

however I was merely trying to come up with a "better analogy" to facilitate discussion vs the OP

 

[Strathos]

Sounds like the popular response to Y2K...

Among other things...

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this man's behavior and attitude reasonable?

No.

 

[Kylie]

I don't like this analogy at all. If you don't mind I'd like to change it to better facilitate a discussion:

A company claims to have discovered a large concentration of radon gas in a neighborhood and subsequently government health inspectors warn everyone in the neighborhood that they need to get their houses tested for Radon Gas levels. Ironically, the only company who can inspect and treat the problem is the same company that claims to have discovered the gas. The inspection costs $500 and treatment/removal costs $5500.

One homeowner refuses to have any tests done because he doesn't smell, see, or feel anything. He and his entire family stretching back 75 years have lived in that house and in his words, "everyone is fine". Statistically speaking, his household suffers from cancer at a 15% higher rate than the national average.

Is it reasonable for this homeowner to refuse to have any tests done?

This analogy seems to suggest that non-believers suffer in some quantifiable way from their lack of belief. Do you have any evidence to support this?

 

[Strathos]

This analogy seems to suggest that non-believers suffer in some quantifiable way from their lack of belief. Do you have any evidence to support this?

While I do believe that, that wasn't the point of the analogy.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like the popular response to Y2K...

I remember that.

People are like "oh that was nothing" totally neglecting the vast work that went into making sure it was nothing.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A large wildfire is approaching a man's house. A group of firefighters warn him that his house is in the path of the fire, and that he should evacuate to a safe location.

The man tells them that he doesn't believe them - there is no fire and no threat, and he is staying put.

The firefighters then spend the next several days and nights working around the clock to contain the fire, and finally manage to put it out, just before it reaches the man's yard.

The man then tells them 'See, I told you my house wasn't going to burn down. There was never any fire. You were making up the entire thing to try to scare me. This is why I don't trust firefighters'.

Is this man's behavior and attitude reasonable?

Are you saying there is no evidence of a fire? No burnt trees, other houses destroyed? If there is no evidence of a fire then he could be forgiven for the conclusion he came to. If he's just ignoring the evidence then he's a fool.

 

[Strathos]

Are you saying there is no evidence of a fire? No burnt trees, other houses destroyed? If there is no evidence of a fire then he could be forgiven for the conclusion he came to. If he's just ignoring the evidence then he's a fool.

There's plenty of evidence, but he either refuses to look at it or thinks it's all part of a conspiracy.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There's plenty of evidence, but he either refuses to look at it or thinks it's all part of a conspiracy.

He is, indeed, a foolish individual.

 

[Kylie]

While I do believe that, that wasn't the point of the analogy.

Um, how do you know what dgiharris's point was?