The Necessity to Experience

The other day, when I was up in Michigan having dinner with friends, the wife of the couple commented on her brother-in-law, a Lutheran pastor and father to a 12-year old girl. Specifically, she criticized her brother-in-law for not allowing his daughter to read the "Harry Potter" books or to see the movies. Over dinner, the wife of the couple said:

"I'd have more respect for him if he had read one of the books or saw one of the movies."

This got me thinking -- is it necessary to experience something to hold an opinion on it? If so, then it would seem to negate a long-standing human practice of relying on the testimony of others to form our opinions of things. For instance, the act of learning in school is largely the act of relying on the testimony of the teacher. Sure, I can read the book, but it is the teacher providing commentary and guided analysis that forms the opinion in my mind.

Similarly, in a medical setting I am very much reliant on the expert opinion of another -- a doctor -- for me to form an opinion, or judgment, on something such as the state of my health.

In a much less serious mode, we rely on the word of friends to decide whether or not to see a movie. If we decide to forego the movie based on the opinion of a friend, are we not deferring to the judgment of that friend?

So what is the difference with the brother-in-law pastor? Let's say -- and I don't know if this is the case -- that he had spoken with a respected friend and fellow pastor about the movies. Let's say the friend had seen it, and offered specific reasons why the daughter should not see the movie. Did the brother-in-law really do anything that different from what all of us do every day ... that is, relying on the trusted testimony of another to form a judgment, opinion, or decision?