|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the rules in science | |||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
My own view is that ideally science should be descriptive not prescriptive and objective rather than subjective.
However, human endevours are rarely ideal. Hume brought up the Is-Ought problem:
quote: It is difficult enough to justify going from 'is' to 'ought' but that remains a problem for philosophers not for scientists (unless they engage in it, sometimes to poor ends). As for objective/subjective (a different issue in itself), science should strive to be objective, but it simply cannot be perfectly objective because it's subjective agents that carry it out, and interpret it and give it any meaning. There are some good mechanisms in the scientific method for trying to eliminate this element as much as is, heh, humanly possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The point is to make a clear distinction between ought and is. I agreed with you that one must discriminate betweent 'ought' or prescriptive and 'is' or descriptive.
Not acknowledging the other category, the spiritual, that has proven to lead to messing things up, like social darwinism. It's not necessary to ignore the spiritual. One simply needs to erroneously derive an ought from an is.
There is such a large percentage of evolutionists now who don't actually support the spiritual, who continuously mess up the objective with the subjective when the issue is about something like evolution of morality, or consciousness, etc. There are a large number of people that do this. Their opinions on evolution notwithstanding. I don't see this as being common with evolutionary biologists, though. Do you have evidence?
- when they demand objective evidence for the spiritual (God), which is basically equal to demanding objective evidence of goodness or badness If you are saying that God is a subjective concept, then those people would certainly agree with you. So just say that God is no more objectively real than the concept of goodness and you may find yourself in agreement with them.
- when they make a mess of subjectivity and objectivity in talking about people, brains, freedom, morality, evolution of morality, the underlying motivations in universal processes or lack thereof etc. When anybody gets something we perceive as wrong we should bring it up as long as it is on topic. That's what we're here for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Many texts about evolution of morality are deceptive this way Perhaps an example, with a suitable extract, might help us see where you are coming from? Whenever I see texts about the evolution of morality, it is approached from a descriptive and objective point of view (as much as can be reasonably expected from a human).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think the blind, pitiless indifference is already a good enough example. So they are being objective and descriptive rather than subjective and prescriptive, and this is a bad thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It isn't clear that you are not blending ought with is, use words that in common knowledge are not subjective, don't annoy scientists by going anywhere near the border of what's not allowed. So let me get this right: 1: Don't use subjective terms, that's not allowed. 2: Don't use objective terms, it comes across as blind and pitiless. You must be able to see why everyone is a little confused. I once again call upon you for examples. Perhaps one example of confusing subjective terms in science and one example of pitiless objective terms in science. In both cases, it would also be useful to us to see you reword them into acceptable-speak. Otherwise, I'll just have to assume the way things are is pretty good and since your advice/critique seems self-contradictory I'll have to ignore it and look to other critiques, sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Darwin's reference to "form" in the quote I provided above is where he pins himslef down to the notion of form that Kanthad taken up previously as the subjective basis for any truth. Just because he used the same word, which can also mean something more common? The point Darwin was making is that we should try and imagine it, and the result will be "to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each, at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation, or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction." He seemed to be talking of the perils of introducing foreign flor and fauna into a biosystem: we should try to imagine what the result of introducing bullfrogs to Australia will be, and this will convince us that we are too ignorant to know how it will cope with differring competition. Further support for the 'its the same word meant in a different way' hypothesis is found in that not all editions used the same word, I don't know the edition you are using but in the sixth edition the word 'form' has 'species' in its place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So what happens then is that the great leader says that we all share the value of preserving our race, and we share the value of struggle with other races, which results in the best races to be preserved. Then the 'great leader' has crossed the line from ought to is. It would be no different if a terrible leader concluded that since there is a struggle for life, we ought not interfere and then banning all medicine. Simply because there is a struggle for life, doesn't mean we ought to make life a greater struggle than it is nor does it mean we ought to alleviate as much of that struggle as we can.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024