What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[I Am The Scum]

What scientific experiment can I perform to indicate that everything is under the purview of science?

 

[Leumas]

Where does science tell me why I should eat food?

Science has a lot to say about what happens if I don't, but why should I?

I tell you what.. why don't you conduct an experiment and find out for yourself... stop eating for forty days and see..

How does science help me analyze the validity of an argument?

Have you heard of logic, reason, evidence, proof, scientific method and critical thinking?

I was told by some teachers that they are no longer things being taught by "philosophy" teachers because they now teach these things in science courses... enroll in some science courses.

What scientific experiment can I perform to indicate that everything is under the purview of science?

It's called living a life of critical thinking, rationality, logic, skepticism and reason.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Yeah so just answer those questions whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

 

[phiwum]

Have you heard of logic, reason, evidence, proof, scientific method and critical thinking?

I was told by some teachers that they are no longer things being taught by "philosophy" teachers because they now teach these things in science courses... enroll in some science courses.

You were told no such thing.

You were told that my particular philosophy department has little demand for logic and so does not offer it on a regular basis. Other philosophy departments still do logic, as evidenced by the fact that I received a PhD in logic from a philosophy department.

So much for your insight into the state of philosophical logic.

 

[Leumas]

Yeah so just answer those questions whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

Well... the above response explains why you are having such difficulty recognizing how and when science works.

 

[Leumas]

You were told no such thing.

You were told that my particular philosophy department has little demand for logic and so does not offer it on a regular basis. Other philosophy departments still do logic, as evidenced by the fact that I received a PhD in logic from a philosophy department.

So much for your insight into the state of philosophical logic.

So besides logic and critical thinking you are also not up to date on sarcasm either?

 

[phiwum]

So besides logic and critical thinking you are also not up to date on sarcasm either?

Sure, whatever.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Well... the above response explains why you are having such difficulty recognizing how and when science works.

Okay, let's break this down one at a time.

I asked for a scientific experiment. You replied:

It's called living a life of critical thinking, rationality, logic, skepticism and reason.

Do you honestly believe that living your life a certain way constitutes a scientific experiment?

 

[phiwum]

You did not ask for a scientific experiment!!!
Do I really need to remind you of your very own question?

What scientific experiment can I perform to indicate that everything is under the purview of science?

You are becoming less lucid with every post, I'm afraid.

 

[Leumas]

My claim was simple. Science is descriptive, not normative in nature. Science does not derive "ought" statements.

You claim this is false. Go ahead and show it. Show a scientific result that ends in a normative claim.

Or, you know, keep going with animations. That's another way to win an argument.

Living is nothing but a continuous scientific experiment from the day we are able to act and interact and effect changes in the environment and be affected by the environment.

It is an iterative cumulative experiment to determine what works and does not work all with the aim of effectively and efficiently and AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE interact with our environment.

With science's ability to provide the CORRECT DESCRIPTIONS of what is... we can CORRECTLY effect the necessary strategies and tactics for actions knowing correctly what is but also and more importantly WHAT WILL BE.

If "normative" means CORRECT ... if what ought means what is best... then science's descriptions are a vital tool.

One's tools limit what one can do and invariably also limit what one thinks he can do.

So science's descriptive powers shape our understanding of what is and what will be and thus eventually what ought to be.

But if "normative" and "ought" are not to be taken to mean the correct and best results then STILL even then science can also be an invaluable tool... because when it provides us with the correct information we then know what is the incorrect stuff that we want to do.

 

[phiwum]

Living is nothing but a continuous scientific experiment from the day we are able to act and interact and effect changes in the environment and be affected by the environment.

It is an iterative cumulative experiment to determine what works and does not work all with the aim of effectively and efficiently and AS CORRECTLY AS POSSIBLE interact with our environment.

Science's ability to provide the CORRECT DESCRIPTIONS of what is... we can CORRECTLY effect the necessary strategies and tactics for actions knowing correctly what is but also and more importantly WHAT WILL BE.

If "normative" means CORRECT ... if what ought means what is best... then science's descriptions are a vital tool.


One's tools limit what one can do and invariably also limit what one thinks he can do.

So science's descriptive powers shape our understanding of what is and what will be and thus eventually what ought to be.

But if "normative" and "ought" are not to be taken to mean the correct and best results then STILL even then science can also be an invaluable tool... because when it provides us with the correct information we then know what is the incorrect stuff that we want to do.

I think that what you've said so far no one could deny. On the instrumentalist view of practical deliberation, we reason about means to our various ends. Science is a very reliable source for causal relations, and such relations provide the means for means-end reasoning.

But, of course, they don't provide the end[1]. Science doesn't tell one what he desires, though it provides very useful information regarding how to achieve what one desires.

All of this is consistent with what I said: science aims at description, not prescription. This fact is perfectly consistent with the utility of scientific discoveries in practical deliberation.


[1] Except in the case that the end currently pursued is itself instrumental, but the final end is not itself instrumental.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Yes, very good. A scientific experiment that he can perform to indicate that everything is under the purview of science is obviously not a scientific experiment.

Thanks for that insight.

Well, since logic is not science, then your categorical analysis cannot be true.

Or something...

 

[devnull]

(see the Trolley problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem).

Interesting. Im pretty convinced I wouldnt switch.

Would be interested in the reasoning behind switching, which according to the statistics is actually the norm.

 

[phiwum]

Well, since logic is not science, then your categorical analysis cannot be true.

Or something...

Leumas seems to suggest that logic is science, and I presume the same would go for mathematics, too.

I know that the status of math is somewhat controversial, but it has none of the empirical, inductive character of what we think of as science. It just isn't a science in the same sense.

Logic, of course, is even easier. On more or less the same basis (logical rules of inference neither require nor are made more probable by observations), logic is simply not an empirical endeavor. (Mill famously disagreed, claiming that logical truths are known by observation and experience.)

 

[phiwum]

Interesting. Im pretty convinced I wouldnt switch.

Would be interested in the reasoning behind switching, which according to the statistics is actually the norm.

You may be interested in this episode of Radiolab.

Researchers look into which parts of the brain are active when subjects are considering the two scenarios, and discover that the different scenarios trigger different parts of the brain, corresponding to the reasoning involved.

Sorry I can't be more explicit, but it's been a long time since I heard it.

ETA: Most semesters, I discuss this problem in the first meeting of class. Most students would flip the switch, but not push the man, as expected, but the justifications they give are not particularly insightful. A lot of it has to do with the immediacy of pushing the man, but when I suggest that they could just squeeze a trigger and shoot him so that he falls onto the track, thereby removing the need to physically touch him, of course they still think that would be wrong, so immediacy can't really explain the difference in intuitions.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Agreed with those two posts and also want to point out: Thought experiments are certainly not scientific, yet very useful and insightful.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Leumas, what is logic?

 

[Leumas]

...science aims at description, not prescription...

I suggest you have a look at this post.

 

[angrysoba]

Can confirm. It took me a few debates (though I wasn't familiar with formal debates much to begin with) before I realized that all he did was Gish Gallop and speak very dismissively about any rebuttal raised against him. I think Kagan and Carroll both did well in their debates against him and that everyone else that I've seen did relatively poorly

Pigliucci wiped the floor with him in their debates because he knew WLC's tactics.

 

[Leumas]

... Thought experiments are certainly ...very useful and insightful.

Yes if the "thought" is an informed, experienced, rational, logical and intelligent one formed with practical reasoning.

In other words... if it is a thought that is based upon scientific knowledge and critical reasoning that has been learned and gleaned from scientific experience and scientific skills and a scientific education.

Thoughts are not at all very useful and most emphatically not insightful if they are based upon woo and supernatural wishful thinking and spiritual delusions and metaphysical poppycock and transcendental sky daddies.