The science of morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2011, 04:33 AM
RE: The science of morality
(21-12-2011 04:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(21-12-2011 03:58 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  Believing that science describes reality doesn't improve our lives in any way, and it obviously doesn't affect the process of science as the method itself is entirely agnostic on the issue of reality, so I don't see any advantage in making the logical leap of asserting that science describes reality.

Er... why do we do science then? What do you mean by reality? If you mean that if I hit you on the head with a stick then it's gonna hurt, then science is the tool for understanding that.

I mean, we make theories and we bear in mind that they may be wrong. But even with an incorrect theory of heat James Watt made a steam engine (no reference, just something I read somewhere). Science may not *exactly* describe reality 'cos we're not super bright, but it's a damn good working hypothesis.

I think you're playing semantic games...

It's not semantics but it probably is a more technical issue than is necessary here. If we just want to describe "reality" as that which we observe, like feeling pain when someone hits us across the head with a stick, then that can work for standard conversation. But in more technical discussions on "reality", we're discussing ontological positions. In Kantian terms, science is the study of "phenomena", and reality is "noumena" - which is the distinction between the world of appearance and the "thing-in-itself".

This kind of metaphysical discussion is irrelevant to science because it doesn't matter whether the firetruck really exists "in-itself" or not, because either way we're going to feel the "illusion" of pain that is caused by the apparent firetruck speeding right through us. This is why science assumes methodological naturalism, where it basically just throws its hands in the air and says, "Fuck it, I'm just going to assume the world is natural because it's simple and easy".

So we do science because it's useful and it comes in handy to us. Whether the world is just appearance or really is as it appears doesn't change the fact that I don't want my "illusionary" airplane to fall out of the sky when I'm on it. Of course, it's probably the case that there is at least some correlation between our observations and how things actually are, but the problem is just that there is no logical reason to actually think that it is, and we have no way of figuring out which observations are "true" and which are not. We just adopt a position of naive realism in day-to-day life because it's the most pragmatic position to take, not because there's any evidence or reason to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mr.Samsa's post
21-12-2011, 04:12 PM
RE: The science of morality
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/are-you-good-or-evil/


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/who-says-...-morality/



Ideological reductionistic ,one dimentional, one sided, color blind , handicaped prescriptive interpretative speculative materialism ruling the world & dominating in exact sciences as well as in human sciences , excluding all non-materialistic paradigms in the process


Worse : materialism imposing its own prescriptive matters, ethics, epistemology....to science as "scientific facts "
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 03:30 PM
RE: The science of morality
(21-12-2011 03:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  Er... so let me get this straight:

I expect that the interactions will *look like no interaction is happening*???

Ok so now we are at the point of postulating just any and every possible imaginable supernatural entity, as long as it does NOTHING? And it's acceptable because their existence can't be disproved? So these imagined entities have no explanatory power, no reason to exist, no purpose of discussion other than "I can imagine them therefore they may exist"? I hope you can see how weak that argument is?

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-12-2011, 07:26 PM
RE: The science of morality
(23-12-2011 03:30 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(21-12-2011 03:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  Er... so let me get this straight:

I expect that the interactions will *look like no interaction is happening*???

Ok so now we are at the point of postulating just any and every possible imaginable supernatural entity, as long as it does NOTHING? And it's acceptable because their existence can't be disproved? So these imagined entities have no explanatory power, no reason to exist, no purpose of discussion other than "I can imagine them therefore they may exist"? I hope you can see how weak that argument is?

It is a weak argument, but fortunately nobody is proposing that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: