Analysis Of Who's To Say By Norman Melchert

In the book Who’s To Say? by Norman Melchert, a group of friends discuss relativism. Throughout the text, Melchert conveys that language can divide humanity and that this restrains people from getting a neutral observation. Through Peter, Melchert affirms that the way in which an event is observed is affected by how it is experienced, as well as the differences in observations amongst humankind. He concludes that our perspectives and testimonies are adulterated by our experiences.
Through the conversations, these six friends are debating amongst themselves the concept of knowledge. Peter theorizes that nobody has a particular view of something, but rather, a person has denials of certain views and positions. People do not have any “objectively

When questioned about the existence of supernatural beings in the world, Sam says that the church has been examining such possibilities from the beginning of its formation. To determine if it is true, the church and its followers must look to scripture and see if their postulations are “in conformity” with the Bible (Melchert 34). Certainly, followers of other religions would not seek the Bible’s stance on supernaturalism if they wished to find an answer to the same question. For example, Muslims would turn to the Koran, while Mormons would seek responses within the Book of Mormon; however, “looked at from the viewpoint of scripture, they can be seen to have only part of the truth, and much error as well” (Melchert 34). This is the direct result of Christians heeding to a scripture-based tradition, having their positions and viewpoints influences by those of the church. While Sam feels that his experiences simply corroborate with that of the church and are not molded by it, “his experience is itself shaped by the Christian tradition” (Melchert 40). For this model, the church is an illustration of influential human experience and Sam’s dictated opinion about the supernatural is evidence of how his language and beliefs are formed by his faith-impacted

He equivocates the ship to one’s beliefs, emphasizing that much like a ship, one’s principles keep him or her afloat in the world; this consists of “our firm convictions, our theories, our guesses, [and] our hunches” (Melchert 41). While on the ship, one can only adjust their convictions, but cannot alter them completely. This does not mean that one cannot change their views altogether, though. Indeed, each person in the world is like a ship, all of them possessing their own cargo influenced by experiences unique to them. When one wishes to change his or her beliefs, they are “jump[ing] ship.” However, the reasons for which one would leap off of their own ship lie exclusively within the new ship that they are climbing aboard (Melchert 41). The reasons for which a person would abandon his or her own ship for another is, like the person, unique; thus, “different techniques [to persuade someone onto another ship] might work for different people” (Melchert