Are you a secularist

[tsig]

No, I'm asking "does good art exist?"

Someone claimed good art doesn't exist. That's absurd. Do you agree with that claim?

No, some of it is very good for starting fires quickly, all those oils and old wood.

 

[Nonpareil]

Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.

Do you agree that the answer to my question is "no", even though we haven't said one thing about the word "should"?

That depends on your definition of "should".

It really isn't complicated. You have to define the system you are using to calculate moral value before you can demand an answer to it. You have done so, inside the confines of your own head. You have a definition of "should".

 

[annnnoid]

No, some of it is very good for starting fires quickly, all those oils and old wood.

..

You don't have to declare victory because your modus operandi is to make vague, meaningless, irrelevant statements in the fond belief that they make you appear intelligent.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes. Yes, you did.

Running away again. Fail #6.

Here are the issues:

What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.

Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?

Morality and murder

Resolve the issues exclusively using the epistemology of science.

If something isn’t defined…define it using the epistemology of science.

…or admit you can’t.

You’re embarrassing yourself mightily here Nonpareil. You claimed science is the only thing that works.

...now you never stop running away from the consequences of that claim.

 

[Fudbucker]

That depends on your definition of "should".

It really isn't complicated. You have to define the system you are using to calculate moral value before you can demand an answer to it. You have done so, inside the confines of your own head. You have a definition of "should".

I agree. The answer is "no, the U.S. should not invade Mexico and enslave it's people". The question is easily understood and the answer is obvious. Nothing more needs to be said.

As a teacher, I'm asked "should" questions all the time. Not once have I ever had to define "should" to get my point across that No, Johnny, you shouldn't hit Billy because he called you fat.

In other words, people who demand that "should" be defined know perfectly well what it means, and no one ever tells the cop "define should" when he tells you you shouldn't have been driving 60 in a residential zone.

 

[Nonpareil]

I agree. The answer is "no, the U.S. should not invade Mexico and enslave it's people". The question is easily understood and the answer is obvious. Nothing more needs to be said.

The question is easily understood in common conversation because you share the societal moral system.

The point is not that you cannot define "should". It is exactly the opposite. You do, so quickly and easily that you don't have to think about it. You are intimately familiar with your own system of morality.

Telling science to define that system for you, meanwhile, is nonsensical. Moral value is not objective. All moral codes are, at the most basic level, arbitrary, as are all statements of worth. No particle of goodness or beauty exists. The Mona Lisa is no more objectively beautiful than a snuff film, and Mother Theresa was no more objectively good than Hitler.

All of these things are opinions. The system you use to determine those opinions might be common in your society or unique to you, but it is still, at its most basic level, arbitrary; "murder is wrong" means nothing unless "wrong" has been defined, which requires that you operate within a moral system that defines it.

Once the system is in place, science can answer the question trivially easily, but you still have to define your terms. In the same way, you coukd ask "is the sun big?" and get the rejoinder "what's big?", because "big" is arbitrary. Is a cell big? Compared to an atom, certainly, but not to a building.

You want a scientific answer to "is murder wrong?" Then all you have to do is define "wrong".

Which, like I said, isn't hard.

 

[annnnoid]

The question is easily understood in common conversation because you share the societal moral system.

The point is not that you cannot define "should". It is exactly the opposite. You do, so quickly and easily that you don't have to think about it. You are intimately familiar with your own system of morality.

Telling science to define that system for you, meanwhile, is nonsensical. Moral value is not objective. All moral codes are, at the most basic level, arbitrary, as are all statements of worth. No particle of goodness or beauty exists. The Mona Lisa is no more objectively beautiful than a snuff film, and Mother Theresa was no more objectively good than Hitler.

All of these things are opinions. The system you use to determine those opinions might be common in your society or unique to you, but it is still, at its most basic level, arbitrary; "murder is wrong" means nothing unless "wrong" has been defined, which requires that you operate within a moral system that defines it.

Once the system is in place, science can answer the question trivially easily, but you still have to define your terms. In the same way, you coukd ask "is the sun big?" and get the rejoinder "what's big?", because "big" is arbitrary. Is a cell big? Compared to an atom, certainly, but not to a building.

You want a scientific answer to "is murder wrong?" Then all you have to do is define "wrong".

Which, like I said, isn't hard.

...so use your ONE TRUE EPISTEMOLOGY and define it then!

Nothing else works. Remember. Your very words.

...we are at fail #6. All you have to do is prove that your claims are not a fraud and we'll avoid fail #7. Prove that the OTE can deal with something as insignificant as defining morality.

Cause if it can't...then it's not even close to being the one...true...epistemology.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy believes that if one moves enough rocks around in the "right way", one can produce a conscious mind.

That should disqualify him from heading most scientific organizations.

It's mathematically impossible for this not to work. Indeed, many physicists are seriously proposing that something like this is the underlying mechanism of our own universe.

On the other hand, we have your incredulity.

 

[PixyMisa]

So the statement "a billion monkeys live on Venus" is valid? Each term in that statement is "well defined".

The question Do a billion monkeys live on Venus? is valid, and the answer is No.

The statement A billion monkeys live on Venus is well-formed, but false.

Regardless of how you intended your remark, this is in fact what I was driving at: That sort of statement (or question) with properly defined terms, can be addressed scientifically.

Statements (or questions) with undefined terms can't be addressed at all.

And normative statements (or questions) have undefined terms by their very nature. Once they are properly defined, they can be addressed scientifically... And they're no longer normative.

 

[PixyMisa]

Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?

Define "should".

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".

The question has no meaning. Your terms are undefined.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.

Then you have no basis for your answer.

Do you agree that the answer to my question is "no", even though we haven't said one thing about the word "should"?

Define "should".

 

[PixyMisa]

No, I'm asking "does good art exist?"

Define "good". You may also want to define "art", though we can accept a common dictionary definition on that if you like.

Someone claimed good art doesn't exist. That's absurd. Do you agree with that claim?

Define "good". Optionally, define "art". Your statement has no meaning.

 

[Nonpareil]

...so use your ONE TRUE EPISTEMOLOGY and define it then!

Yes, annnnoid, we know that you don't understand what an epistemology is or what it's for. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

 

[PixyMisa]

...so use your ONE TRUE EPISTEMOLOGY and define it then!

So, what you are asking from us is is not only to answer your question, but to formulate and ask it as well? And leave you out of the process entirely?

I'm fine with that. Everyone else? Show of hands?

 

[tsig]

So, what you are asking from us is is not only to answer your question, but to formulate and ask it as well? And leave you out of the process entirely?

I'm fine with that. Everyone else? Show of hands?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The question is easily understood in common conversation because you share the societal moral system.

The point is not that you cannot define "should". It is exactly the opposite. You do, so quickly and easily that you don't have to think about it. You are intimately familiar with your own system of morality.

Telling science to define that system for you, meanwhile, is nonsensical. Moral value is not objective. All moral codes are, at the most basic level, arbitrary, as are all statements of worth. No particle of goodness or beauty exists. The Mona Lisa is no more objectively beautiful than a snuff film, and Mother Theresa was no more objectively good than Hitler.

All of these things are opinions. The system you use to determine those opinions might be common in your society or unique to you, but it is still, at its most basic level, arbitrary; "murder is wrong" means nothing unless "wrong" has been defined, which requires that you operate within a moral system that defines it.

Once the system is in place, science can answer the question trivially easily, but you still have to define your terms. In the same way, you coukd ask "is the sun big?" and get the rejoinder "what's big?", because "big" is arbitrary. Is a cell big? Compared to an atom, certainly, but not to a building.

You want a scientific answer to "is murder wrong?" Then all you have to do is define "wrong".

Which, like I said, isn't hard.

Take that up with those atheists, who claim that they can do objective morality/ethics and then figure out who are the woo-believers. Is subjective or objective morality/ethics woo?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I am slow. But now I get it.

How you define right and wrong can't be done using the scientific methodology, but once you subjectively and without the use of science has defined right and wrong, you can use it(science).

So how do you know how to define right and wrong, if you can't use science to do that?

Edit: Clarification - If you know how to define right and wrong but you don't use the scientific epistemology, you use another epistemology. Or if you don't know how to define right and wrong, you believe in right and wrong without evidence and thus you are irrational.

 

[PixyMisa]

I am slow. But now I get it.

How you define right and wrong can't be done using the scientific methodology, but once you subjectively and without the use of science has defined right and wrong, you can use it(science).

Science can of course be used to define words. But you have to actually decide to use science for that.

So how do you know how to define right and wrong, if you can't use science to do that?

It's very simple: If you don't know what a word means, don't use it.

 

[Dani]

There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.

Of course science can't answer rightness and wrongness, or "shoulds", as if they were meaningful. Not all the words we use have to be objectively useful. People like Sam Harris are too obsessed with this triviality and rush to claim victory for science in one of the most inane endeavors I remember from a public intellectual. No, thanks. Science works precisely because it has some restrictions: it's about the objective reality.

 

[annnnoid]

There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.

Of course science can't answer rightness and wrongness, or "shoulds", as if they were meaningful. Not all the words we use have to be objectively useful. People like Sam Harris are too obsessed with this triviality and rush to claim victory for science in one of the most inane endeavors I remember from a public intellectual. No, thanks. Science works precisely because it has some restrictions: it's about the objective reality.

...no...what Pixy has repeatedly argued is that if it is not objectively meaningful...it is simply not meaningful. If it can't be scientifically adjudicated, it is simply not valid.

...as absurd a position as can be taken in this internet obsessed world (where subjective expression runs rampant). You can take it up with him. I have other things to do today.

 

[annnnoid]

Yes, annnnoid, we know that you don't understand what an epistemology is or what it's for. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.

...no definition for morality. Not even an attempt.

Fail #7.

Your one-true-epistemology is sure making a fool of itself here Nonpareil.