the rules in science

If you are able to make sense of Syamsu's assertions that every event involving physical processes and inanimate objects is made as a result of moral decisions by those self same physical processes and inanimate objects in the "spiritual realm" then I for one would love to see it.As things stand it seesm to me that he is just applying meaningless labels to ill thought and evidentially refuted concepts.

Without brains there is no such thing as subjectivity.
This is not the same as saying that issues such as morality can be determined objectively.
But I challenge you to make a moral decision without your brain. There is no "rule". There is only the limitation of science in it's ability to study only the physical and empirical. I agree that questions such as "ought" are not covered by science as a result of this limitation. 100% in fact. With the possible exception of other conscious, potentially moral, beings elsewhere in the universe. However if such beings do exist then there is little reason to think that their moral values will be the same as ours. No. Nobody is saying that. I don't even know what "scientifically good" means?
What do you mean by "scientifically good"? Yes. Or the equivalent that allows conscious thought. Precisely. And as a result close to 100% of the universe is neither moral nor immoral. Hence descriptions such as blind, pitiless, loveless and indifferent. These terms are not being applied in the same negative manner as we might apply them to a fellow moral being of whom our expectations are higher. With regard to nature we could also use descriptions such as evil-less, vindictive-less or hate-less. Nature is amoral in the pure and strict definition of the term. I.e. incapable of morality. This is because most natural processes and entities, all those incapable of conscious thought, are incapable of decisions and therefore are incapable of subjective moral choices.

Until you can explain the contradiction that simple physical entities (e.g. planets) make moral decisions in the "spiritual realm" whilst appearing to obey mechanistic laws and displaying highly predictive behavior:

Until you can explain why it is that physical phenomenon (such as brain damage) have such profound effects on the ability of conscious beings to make subjective judgements:

Until you can explain how the physical and spiritual realms can interact such that physical beings can derive decisions in the "spiritual realm" and apply them to the physical:

Until you can give us any reason to believe that the "spiritual realm" even exists beyond your stupidly misconceived idea of the "rule":

​

Why should we abandon evidence and reason to follow your insane notions that toothbrushes make decisions, planetary orbits can be evil and that paper-clips feel love (all of which you have indicated elsewhere to be a direct consequence of the position you are taking in this thread)?

​

There is no "rule". You have no point.

None of this means anything. You have no idea what you are talking about and this is obvious to all. You are garbling and conflating ill understood scientific concepts with faith based dogma to form a Syamsu hybrid that is neither one nor the other.What do you actually mean. If you have something meaningful to say then give us the example that you have been repeatedly asked to give. By myself and various others who have taken part in this thread.Why are you so reluctant or incapable of doing this? As before I ask (for the 6th time?):Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature? "Reasonable judgement" is just a euphamism for whatever the person using the term wants to believe is reasonable. Regardless of reason. It means nothing more than "I believe" to all practical intents and purposes.
If people decide that they want to hug trees for the sake of hugging trees, because it makes them feel better about themselves and becuase it is the "right thing to do" then I don't think science has much to say about that. If anything science may even be able to show that such practises have genuinely stress relieving and beneficial health effects!! However if people say that hugging trees causes their "energy" to be enhanced such that their "metaphysical presence" is amplified and their "soul cleansed" then I would suggest that they are talking in pseudo scientific terms that are ill defined and meaningless. Much like your completely undefined notion of the "spiritual realm".Meaningless terms dressed up in pseudoscientific language to give credence to utter nonsense. I love my son and would do almost anything to save him from pain, suffering and death. I make no rational argument for this view and require none to be made for me. I need no more reason for this than the love for my son that I know I subjectively feel. I would have it no other way. This, like many other such examples, is what makes us all human. Despite some notable exceptions, I am proud to count myself as a member of such an amazing species as humanity and subjectively consider the future of humanity as a whole as something worth fighting for.But this does not stop me from recognising that such things as love for ones offspring are objectively necessary features of a successfully evolved social species. Scientific investigation explains why I feel such deep love for my son without ever detracting from the very subjective human nature of the love that I actually personally subjectively feel.This is what you fail to understand in your black and white, objective vs subjective, material vs supernatural simplistic and ill conceived view of the world. Whom should we trust and on what basis? You? Why?

As Syamsu is so unwilling to answer and as you seem to be the only person who even claims to have half an idea as to what he does actually mean, maybe you can answer the following questions:Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature?Syamsu is claiming that all alternatives in time are formed by decisions and that the reason "why" any given outcome is chosen over any other is a subjective decision made in the "spiritual realm". All acts of nature are therefore "decisions" and the inanimate objects and processes involved in such decisions are therefore capable of good, evil, love and all other non-objective facets of the "spiritual realm".So what decisions do toothbrushes make, can planetary orbits be evil and do coffee-cups experience love?As stupid as the above sentance sounds Syamsu has claimed all of the above as "common sense" conclusions of his decisions theory. Are you really agreeing with this?

All subjectivity is rooted in the physical.Take away your brain and lets see how subjective or moral you are capable of being.We can study the physical basis of subjective thoughtPsychology, brain physiology, evolutionary aspects of moral and social development etc. etc. etc. These things can tell us why we are as we are using the exact same methods that we use to investigate any other aspect of nature. I.e. the methods of science.But scientifically understanding the physiology of love or the evolutionary aspects of morality have no bearing on the subjective worth of these thingsStudying why and how human societies developed a certain moral framework will not tell us what we "ought" to do.
Understanding the physiology and psychology of love will not make me love my son any less.
Subjectivity is what makes us human rather than mindless automatons. I embrace subjectivity but I also embrace understanding. The two need not contradict each other. You have a very dim and very wrong view of what science actually is. Your arguments against science are largely against a non-existant version of science that you have conjured up as an imaginary adversary to your faith based beliefs.Your ongoing inability to provide specific examples of where it is that you think science is overstepping it's possible remit is testament to this fact. Several of us have repeatedly asked you for such examples. Well actully yes I do. Morality and the like are subjective. We all agree on that. And I would have it no other way. BUT subjectivity is itself borne from the minds of men. Not some imaginary meaninglessly labelled "spiritual realm" that has no viable way of interracting with the physical world. There you go again telling other people what they actually think. The arrogance........... You seem to have been scarred by a bad experience with science at some point. Or indoctrinated against a false version of science.Why do you deny the obvious conclusion that subjectivity is rooted in the physical? Why does this scare you so much that you ar prepared to grasp to obviously silly theories regarding toothbrushes, planets and the like?Can you be subjective without your brain? Loving? Hateful? Can you make moral choices without your brain? If not why not? What has changed with regard to your interraction with the "spiritual realm" if your brain ceases to function?This is where your whole theory falls down. In essence it is the mind body problem and no-one has adequately solved that one beyond concluding the purely physical.

Do you really think you are more capable of love than those of us that oppose your ideas?

Do you really think that you are more moral than those of us that oppose your ideas?

​

Maybe we should test the theories you have about scientists and science by asking some moral dilemmas and seeing what responses people give and why they give the answers that they do? That would test the premise of your OP would it not?

​

I think your preconceived notions about "science minded folk" would be utterly refuted. And you might even learn how the advocates of science actually do think in the process (not to mention how diverse the views might be)

You are telling everyone else what they think. Again. There is no point discussing anything with you if you are going to tell others what they think and then argue against what you think they think whilst simultaneously ignoring everything that is actually said to you.The whole premise of your OP is the unfounded claim that science is attempting to answer "why" questions that it cannot.Please give a specific example of such a "why" question along with the related research that you consider to be outside the scope of science.If you are unable to do this then I suggest that this is because the sort of "science" that you are objecting to is extremely rare and generally derided by the scientific community, if it even exists at all outside of your imagination.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you have no actual examples to backup your claims about science. Your claims are just assertions borne of irrational prejudice. The whole premise of your OP is false. Then how come you keep managing to be so wrong about what I actually do think? Well you have failed to specify where I, or science as a whole, even vaguely suggest that science can provide any sort of moral framework. In fact I have explained why, for entirely practical reasons, science will be explicitly unable to do this. The premise of your OP is simply a false assertion.THE SPRITUAL REALM
As for your "spiritual realm" alternative..........
You have invented a meaningless and undefined term that is nothing more than a label for your assertions. You then claim moral superiority because of your use of this meaningless and undefined label. Both the weakness and arrogance of your position are truly startling.Not only are you unable to backup your assertions regarding science, your proposed alternative falls foul of one of the oldest problems in philosophy. Namely the mind body problem. How do activities within this undefined "spiritual realm" interact with the physical and why does the physical have such dramatic effects on that which you claim to be spiritual?CONSEQUENCES
It is when two opposing factions "know" with equal unevidenced certainty that they are right by means of the "spiritual realm" (or whatever they happen to label their own equally undefined version of your type of nonsense. Divine revelation, spiritual guidance, God given destiny, whatever) that unresolvable fundamentalist conflict occurs.A world full of people with such smug, uncompromising and unreasoned certainty in their own absolute moral superiority - Now that really is something to fear.GOODBYE
Given that you are unable to present any specific examples to discuss and given that you seem intent on telling me what I think and arguing against that, rather than anything that I actually say, I may as well leave you to debate with yourself. I hope that you have fun doing so.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Debating with you is like arguing with a parrot. Albeit a parrot with an impressive vocabulary by general parrot standards.
You make some assertions. People reply with questions, points and even refutations. You ignore the questions, points and refutations to re-assert your original assertion. You might even add a couple more assertions based on your original ones. People reply with more questions, points and refutations. You ignore all of these questions, points and refutations. You then reword your various assertions......And so it goes on.I will not be rejoining this particular merry go round. But I do want to point out one thing. No example of any research where science professes to conclude any form of preferred morality has been cited by Syamsu. The problem he is so fearful of seems to exist only in his head.Science can and does study how human morality has evolved and with this seeks to explain the morality that humans are found to actually have or have had in different cultures and at various times in the past. Both of these are fully able to be investigated by empirical means.However I have yet to see any scientific research into the morality that we "ought" to have on the basis that it is "good" or "better". These things are not empirically determinable. However that is hardly cause to give them the meaningless label of "spiritual realm" to provide some sort of false seperation.There is no "rule". Just the limitation of science to study the empirical.Scientists like all humans will have moral values and views. I would speculate that scientists and advocates of science in general are more likely to be moral relatavists than absolutists in fact. If true this would rather refute Syamasu's ongoing assertion that all scientists necessarily believe in some sort of rigid objectified deterministically mechanistically derived inhumane form of morality based on his misconceptions of evolutionary theory and the phrase "survival of the fittest".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yup. Same assertions. Slightly different words. No supporting argument made. No points, or refutations addressed. No questions answered.Same old, same old.As predicted.

Well it seems I am back on the merry-go rouund again. Some people never learn I guess......But it does seem that after over a hundred posts we are within touching distance of finally discovering that which you are actually objecting to in vaguely meaningful terms. Finally. Either cite a specific example (publication and page number) of where Darwin, or indeed any specific piece of scientific research, has equated biological superiority in terms of survival with moral goodness or stop making these false assertions.Either put up or shut up. Who gave you the right to decide what is right or wrong?Science is limited to investigation of that which is empirical. Beyond that practical limitation there is no "rule". Your assertion that such a "rule" exists is borne of your own misapprehensions and nothing more.Either tell us where this "rule" is stated and by whom it was decided upon and agreed or stop making these false assertions.Either put up or shut up. Who has stated this as "fact"? If there is empirical evidence for such a conclusion then science has every right to draw that conclusion.Your fear or dislike of that conclusion is neither here nor there. Show me a non-brained entity that is demonstrably making moral choices and I'll start to listen. Until then yours is just an assertion that not only defies all of the available evidence it also defies common sense to the point where even your fellow creationists, I suspect, have trouble following you ("evil planetary orbits", "loving paper-clips", "decision making toothbrushes" to cite just a few of your more deranged previously made assertions). You could be given a mechanical heart replacement and still continue to be both you and to make moral choices as you. Try doing the same after a brain replacement.If physical brains are as irrelevant to morality as you suggest please explain why physical effects on brains seem to have such significant correlating effects on the ability of beings to make moral choices.If you do not attempt to directly address each of the key points that have been boldened, in turn, and instead just continue to make false and unsupported assertions then I really will not bother answering you again in this thread.If you want to address points and form a debate that is fine. If you want to tell me what I think and continue to make false and unsupported assertions then I would rather leave you to debate with yourself and any other poor sucker that takes on your futile little crusade.

I don't think it has anything to do with "rights". Who decides what is "right" and on what basis? Syamsu's silly idea of a "rule" is just nonsense. However there are inherent limitations to that which science can study and the nature of the questions it can answer. With that I agree. These are practical limitations derived from the ability of science to only study that which is empirical. Such investigation can never reveal whether or not we should do something. These are moral and inherently philosophical questions.Whether or not we should impose the death sentance for certain crimes is an example of a question that science can never answer.I would hope that we can answer such questions with a combination of reason and a base agreement as to the nature of the society in which we wish to live. But how we want to live is a subjective decision which will vary considerably from culture to culture and even from person to person. Science cannot be used to answer questions that pertain to such decisions.Having said that science can supply us with greater factual knowledge on which to base our decisions and can even explain why it is that we tend to make some of the choices that we do.This is not the same as science telling us what we should do. This is where Syamsu is getting confused. Agreed. Beauty is a wholly subjective concept. Science cannot tell us what is beautiful. Or what should be considered to be beautiful.BUT science may well tell us what sort of things humans tend to consider beautiful and the basis on which the very concept of beauty may be derived. We might very well even be able to predict that which the majority of people will consider to be beautiful and design accordingly.This is not the same as saying that science tells us what is beautiful or what it is that we should consider to be beautiful.The distinction is subtle. Agreed. The "meaning of life" or lack of it is again a wholly subjective thing.BUT again science may well tell us the sort of things that will tend to give people feelings of satisfaction in life. As evolved creatures it would be very surprising if biologically reproducing were not something we were innately driven to do. As complex social creatures it would be surprising if we did not do this in a complex and social way.Can science tell us whether we should fall in love and start having babies? No.
But it can tell us that many people will tend to find great satisfaction and even meaning in doing so. And explain why that is.This no more means that the bachelor writing books all his life has had an any more or less meaningful life than someone who has had 15 children. He may or may not depending on your point of view. But science is unable to tell us what should be considered important in life.What should be considered important or meaningful is a subjective question that science cannot answer. As before beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
BUT science can tell us what we are more likely to find physically attractive and why. The psychology of advertising is quite telling in this area.Do you have to adhere to this? No. Should you adhere to this? This is a meaningless question. Science cannot tell us what we should do or think.As evolved physical creature we are able to scientifically study ourselves. This will explain and even predict much of our behaviour. Anyone who works in advertising can tell you that!!!!!But knowing what drives us to tend to behave in certain ways and to tend to make certain choices is not the same as telling us what choices we should make.The distinction is subtle but important.

Really? Could you be more explicit?What is the "rule" in question and how exactly does Darwin break this rule? Doesn't this just mean: "It is worth trying to imagine how one form could have an advantage over another"? Where worth in this context relates to ones desire to consider the evolution of different forms.If this is the only or even best example of Darwin claiming that the ability for something to survive equates with it's moral "goodness" then it is so tenuous as to kind of prove my point.Isn't this a problem of language rather than anythinge else? The term "good" can mean able, contextually worthwhile, giving of satisfaction or descriptive of being morally right. Plus many more besides.He is good at running.
It was a good thing that he studied before his exams.
It is good to get some fresh air.
Helping people is good.Syamsu seems to me to be confusing the first (meaning able) as used in science and evolution with the last (meaning morally right).In this context the statement:"He was good at being bad"Would seem to make no sense but we all know this actually means that the person in question was actually well adept at being morally dubious.Is this potentially confusing use of the same term a feature of other languages or unique to English? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't think it does. Syamsu is asserting as to what science should not concern itself with on the basis of some seemingly arbitrary "rule". Certainly he has provided no basis or supporting argument for this asserted "rule".My argument is that the nature of scientific enquiry is limited to the empirical for purely practical reasons and that no "rule" exists or need exist. The limitation is inherent. Science cannot tell us what we should do on this basis.Whilst I am sure that myself and Syamsu have very different ideas as to what forms of "truth" exist I am not sure that this is relevant to whether or not a "rule" of the type Syamsu asserts either exists or can be reasoned to be required given the practical and inherent limitations the methods of science already impose. That is quite a lot to make from the use of one word as flexibly and commonly ambiguously used as the word "form".The shape and structure of an object.
The essence of something.Form - definition of form by The Free DictionaryYou seem to have assumed the latter. It never occurred to me that Darwin meant anything other than the former. I still don't know what this supposed "rule" actually says?
Can it be expressed in a single sentance?Until we are all clear as to what this "rule" actually states there sems little point discussing it's validity.

How do you know what Darwin actually intended?
I fear that you may just be a more eloquent version of Syamsu.... Good as in able? Or good as in morally virtuous?Given that the whole of evolutionary theory is founded upon the concept of physical ability leading to survival and reproduction, any interpretation of the word "good" as meaning moral rather than able seems woefully out of context.On what basis do you assume moral "goodness" rather than physical adeptness (e.g. I am good at running) was being discussed? Especially given the very physical context?Do we normally refer to moral "goodness" in combination with scientifically specific physical terms such as organic and inorganic? Again given the context of physical advantage as the foundation of evolutionary theory would not the word "good" make more sense in terms of increased physical adeptness?

I still don't know what the rule we are supposedly discussing actually states.

I don't see how we can discuss the validity of such a rule unless we all know what the rule actually states.

I don't see how conflating "good" in the moral sense with "good" in the physically adept sense within the context of a theory whose whole premise relies on the concept of relative physical ability is at all reasonably justified.

​

I am interested to know if other languages have this same situation where the word for moral "goodness" is the same as that used to describe physical adeptness?

Type the phrase "forms of life" into the average search engine and I think you might get some insight into the more common usage of the term.I fear that you often see philosophical complexity where the mundane is the actual reality.Looking for unicorns in a field full of donkeys.......Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote