Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the rules in science
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 123 (485098)
10-05-2008 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
10-04-2008 8:32 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
I think you are misrepresenting the psychological sciences involved, who would generally be a lot more careful to avoid any kind of judgement. And when they do talk about good and bad, they would stipulate that they are being subjective. So basically a lot of psychology proceeds on the basis that some things can only be known subjectively. On that basis they can proceed to investigate subjectivity itself, ways of making decisions. The spiritual does the job of choosing, leaving the psychologists to investigate the patterns in choices, without being judgemental.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 10-04-2008 8:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 7:13 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 17 of 123 (485101)
10-05-2008 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 6:58 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
I think you are misrepresenting the psychological sciences involved, who would generally be a lot more careful to avoid any kind of judgement. And when they do talk about good and bad, they would stipulate that they are being subjective. So basically a lot of psychology proceeds on the basis that some things can only be known subjectively. On that basis they can proceed to investigate subjectivity itself, ways of making decisions. The spiritual does the job of choosing, leaving the psychologists to investigate the patterns in choices, without being judgemental.
Can you give a specific example of the science you are objecting to and where it is that this science claims to give us objective criteria for making moral judgements?
Name a specific example of science determining right from wrong rather than empirically examining the basis of such choices.
You seem to think this is a widespread problem so give us some examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 6:58 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 7:29 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 123 (485103)
10-05-2008 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 6:45 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Concepts are material things, they consist of information, so when you say God, goodness and badness are concepts, then you are violating the rule also.
What "rule"? Who wrote this "rule"? Why must we adhere to this "rule"? The fact is that there is no rule. There is simply the limitation of science to investigate only that which is empirical.
All the empirical evidence suggests that goodness, badness, love, hate and gods are indeed concepts. Concepts derived by brained creatures. Not only are they concepts they are concepts that are applied inconsistently across human cultures.
If the basis on which moral decisions are made can be studied empirically then science will indeed be able to investigate these concepts and their their basis in empirical reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 6:45 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 19 of 123 (485104)
10-05-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Straggler
10-05-2008 7:13 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
That the universe is blind pitiless and indifferent. That only people have goodness, or can attribute goodness. Those are some of the things said by evolutionists as if they were scientific fact.
And what this pseudoscientific judging tends to do is to distract away from an objective science about how decisions are made. For example democracy and dictatorship are different ways of making decisions. So we can make science about decisions, without being judgemental. And so we find in the universe at large many different systems that have different ways of arriving at one of many possible alternatives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 7:13 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 7:41 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 20 of 123 (485105)
10-05-2008 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 7:29 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Straggler writes:
Can you give a specific example of the science you are objecting to and where it is that this science claims to give us objective criteria for making moral judgements?
Syamsu writes:
That the universe is blind pitiless and indifferent. That only people have goodness, or can attribute goodness. Those are some of the things said by evolutionists as if they were scientific fact.
And what this pseudoscientific judging tends to do is to distract away from an objective science about how decisions are made. For example democracy and dictatorship are different ways of making decisions. So we can make science about decisions, without being judgemental. And so we find in the universe at large many different systems that have different ways of arriving at one of many possible alternatives.
This is not science saying what is morally right or wrong as per your original claim. This is not science being "judgemental" in the way that you suggest This is science saying that the basis for such concepts cannot be divorced entirely from the physical aspects of reality. Such concepts are rooted in the physical. Such concepts are derived from brains.
If the empirical evidence does indeed suggest that good, bad, love, hate and god are indeed concepts derived from brained conscious creatures rather than somehow things wholly removed from the physical world then on what basis do you disagree with this conclusion? Other than faith based dogma?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 7:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 8:11 AM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 21 of 123 (485109)
10-05-2008 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
10-05-2008 7:41 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Blind, pitiless and indifferent is judgemental. It is also contrasted with humanity being good. If for instance we must choose between preserving a person, or preserving a rock, then this morality says we ought to preserve the person, the rock being worthless.
Your talk about love being rooted in brains is deceptive. With a decision new information is introduced into the universe, namely which alternative is realized and which is destroyed. Now where was this information rooted? It wasn't rooted anywhere, it simply did not exist before the decision was made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 7:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 11:49 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 22 of 123 (485113)
10-05-2008 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 6:45 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Concepts are material things, they consist of information, so when you say God, goodness and badness are concepts, then you are violating the rule also.
We could argue the semantics of the issue, but I don't think it would be productive. By all means, remove the offending phrase and simply keep it as 'God is subjective like goodness or badness'.
Besides good, bad and God, also love and hate and such have to be understood as spiritual in science
Why do they have to be understood that way? Why can we not even investigate the possibility that God or Hate might be describable in purely physical terms? In your lingo - can science not investigate the concept of God and the concept of Hate and try to gain a scientific understanding thereof?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 6:45 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 3:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 23 of 123 (485129)
10-05-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 8:11 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Blind, pitiless and indifferent is judgemental.
No it is not. That is the whole point. It is a statment of fact regarding inanimate objects and mindless physical processes.
It is also contrasted with humanity being good. If for instance we must choose between preserving a person, or preserving a rock, then this morality says we ought to preserve the person, the rock being worthless.
Science in itself makes no such judgement. It may however explain the basis on which we as human beings make such judgements.
Your talk about love being rooted in brains is deceptive. With a decision new information is introduced into the universe, namely which alternative is realized and which is destroyed. Now where was this information rooted? It wasn't rooted anywhere, it simply did not exist before the decision was made.
Things that cannot make decisions cannot make moral choices. Hence the decription of nature as pitiless and indifferent. This is not the same as morally wrong. It is simply a statement of the fact that inanimate objects do not and cannot make such choices.
Lets put aside the question as to whether inanimate objects are capable of moral choices for one moment.
Do you agree that if inanimate objects and physical processes are indeed incapable of such choices then nature is indeed "indifferent and pitiless"?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 8:11 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 24 of 123 (485143)
10-05-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Modulous
10-05-2008 8:27 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
As before, what is out of bounds for science is the why, for when there is a decision. Because the information simply does not exist, and the why information we make up, can be changed without it being any more or less accurate. One day we can say the reason why is X, the other day we can say it's Y, and neither would be more or less accurate as far as science can tell.
Ofcourse you can define the words love and hate, good and bad, in such a way that they are strictly mechanical, but that would lead to confusion with their subjective use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2008 8:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2008 4:42 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2008 6:00 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 25 of 123 (485144)
10-05-2008 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Straggler
10-05-2008 11:49 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Obviously I would not use the word pitiless and indifferent, but rather use a word like forced, to denote the lack of freedom in a system. But ofcourse there are very many different kinds of decisionprocesses going on in the universe, not just in brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 11:49 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2008 6:59 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 123 (485150)
10-05-2008 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 3:11 PM


why rule out scientific investigation?
As before, what is out of bounds for science is the why, for when there is a decision. Because the information simply does not exist, and the why information we make up, can be changed without it being any more or less accurate.
How do you know that? It sounds like an empirical claim that can only be confirmed through the application of science, and we've got a lot of ground to cover before we're able to get there.
One day we can say the reason why is X, the other day we can say it's Y, and neither would be more or less accurate as far as science can tell.
As far as current scientific understanding gets us, there's not a great deal more we can do at this moment. Just because we think we know why we chose X, that does not mean that we are correct. It may be that further investigation will reveal a neural state that existed that necessitated you choosing X. We can never know that for sure unless we go looking. We've come as far as being able to predict whether you will choose X or Y more often, that is, we can for some things, detect predilections or tendencies in certain types of choice correlated with certain neural conditions.
Why suppose that the resolution will forever remain so poor? Why not accept the possibility that further investigations will allow us to see in much finer detail, the workings of the mind?
Ofcourse you can define the words love and hate, good and bad, in such a way that they are strictly mechanical, but that would lead to confusion with their subjective use.
Very well. I still do not think you'd get disagreement from someone like myself if you said god is subjective in the sense that good and bad are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 3:11 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 123 (485152)
10-05-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 3:11 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
As before, what is out of bounds for science is the why, for when there is a decision. Because the information simply does not exist, and the why information we make up, can be changed without it being any more or less accurate. One day we can say the reason why is X, the other day we can say it's Y, and neither would be more or less accurate as far as science can tell.
I asked you before, but you didn't answer:
If you are saying that science has to stay out of the "why" end of things, does that mean that "spiritualists" will quit interfering with science?
Seems only fair.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 3:11 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 AM Coyote has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 28 of 123 (485157)
10-05-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Syamsu
10-05-2008 3:17 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Obviously I would not use the word pitiless and indifferent, but rather use a word like forced, to denote the lack of freedom in a system.
"Forced" implies some sort of external coersion. Descriptions such as "pitiles and indifferent" are not moral judgements made by science. They are descriptions of mindless physical processes that are incapable of good, evil, love, hate, pity or caring.
The whole premise of your OP is misguided in this sense.
But ofcourse there are very many different kinds of decisionprocesses going on in the universe, not just in brains.
So you repeatedly and endlessly assert. Yet you refuse to explain why it is that brains seem to be so fundamental to the whole decision making process. Could you make decisions without your brain?
Can you give an example of moral decisions being made by non-brained entities?
Can you explain why brain damage or even brain removal seems to have such a profound effect on the ability of conscious beings to make moral decisions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Syamsu, posted 10-05-2008 3:17 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 123 (485186)
10-06-2008 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
10-05-2008 6:00 PM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Definitely when scientists don't enter into questions about what should, that's going to help science getting less interference from spiritualists.
Also if the science about decisions is more developed, and if it's acknowledged that what decides is spiritual, then that could well be the end of the creation vs evolution debate.
It's the same thing, the ought, and ought not, also apply to what is making the decision.
So again, the science about decisions would be about things like the structure of decisionmaking, like democracy, or dictatorship are structures, and distinghuising decisions which are reasoned, and not reasoned, informed and not informed etc. but no science about love and whatnot, that will all be left to religion.
And again, freedom is essential to the logic of decisionmaking. This is why we can't be objective about love and such, but we can only know such things subjectively, freely. That's because if it were objective it would also be predetermined, so there would be no freedom, so no decision, so the logic would fail.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 10-05-2008 6:00 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coyote, posted 10-06-2008 10:02 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 31 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2008 10:26 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 30 of 123 (485201)
10-06-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Syamsu
10-06-2008 7:07 AM


Re: prescriptive/descriptive vs objective/subjective
Definitely when scientists don't enter into questions about what should, that's going to help science getting less interference from spiritualists.
You're missing the point entirely.
I am referring to things like the theory of evolution.
You say that science should stay out of the "why" questions.
I would like to know if you would also advocate that "spiritualists" keep their noses out of things like the theory of evolution in return. That is a "what, when, where, and how" question. Clearly, from your viewpoint, "spiritualists" shouldn't be intruding into such fields. Wouldn't you agree?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 10-06-2008 7:07 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024