If ideas opposed to yours aren't worth discussing, what exactly are you doing here?

I think the time has come for all of us to return to constitutional monarchies, with one life-time ruler whose powers are limited by the Constitution, but who is in charge of the country and does not have to worry about losing power as much as rulers do in democracies. — Agustino

So who writes the Constitutions?

Is this your idea of a philosophical debate? I pose two questions asking you to clarify your terms and you give up?

I've read the article, still not seeing the "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"

Pinker says;

"An appreciation of the particulars of a work can co-exist with explanations at many other levels, from the personality of an author to the cultural milieu, the faculties of human nature, and the laws governing social beings."

...and...

"No sane thinker would try to explain World War I in the language of physics, chemistry, and biology as opposed to the more perspicuous language of the perceptions and goals of leaders in 1914 Europe.

...and he describes positions that “science is all that matters” as "lunatic"

So I'm struggling to see this as an example of someone claiming that only science can describe the world.

He even specifically states "... the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values," which doesn't provide a very good example of your definition of "treating science as a source of values"

Any more solid examples you have to had would be helpful.

Yes, I read the Wikipedia article, and I'm familiar with a few of the papers it cites. I'm still not getting any closer to a definition that isn't just personal bias.

The improper usage of science or scientific claims

Who's judging what is improper?

when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry

Perceived by whom?

contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion

Who says how much is 'sufficient' and how are they judging this?

an excessive deference to the claims of scientists

What is 'excessive'?

the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge

What does 'reliable' mean here?

It is a common stance amongst the secular intelligentsia, — Wayfarer

If it's so common, could you help me out with my last question, some actual quotes which typify this definition?

My view that morality is a matter of preference is not a matter of fact. It is a matter of what is the most useful way of looking at the issue. It's a matter of preference. Yes - I am serious. — T Clark

But isn't 'most' useful then a matter of fact. How are you measuring 'most' useful?

So, if feeling is required for morality, then can morality be rational at all? I'm presuming no-one thinks we get to voluntarily decide how we're going to feel, it just happens. If that then informs our moral choices, then it seems that they too just happen, making them not really 'choices' after all.

What does that mean? What are 'values'? Do you mean moral values, or things that people find important, or things that society should find important?

Do you have any quotes from proponents of Scientism that could illustrate what you mean by "treating science as a source of values"?

What would really help is if you could define some of the 'attacks' you have had. It's very difficult as it stands to understand what you're trying to say here. Without something defining the rebuttals you're getting, it sounds like you're just saying that progressive taxation is wrong and you simply can't believe that anyone could be mad enough to disagree with you.

When I talk about the Moon (or apples, or cats), am I really just talking about a particular mass of particles? There's more to it than that. — Michael

Surely what you refer to when you are talking about the moon changes depending on the context. If you were recounting a horror story about werewolves, then 'the moon' would refer to a frightening portent of danger, but when at your job at NASA, piloting the Apollo capsule, you are referring to the mass of particles (or more correctly the model of the physical world we currently share) because its the gravity from those particles that's going to guide the capsule.

I think this is the source of a lot of philosophical smoke and mirrors. Taking the ambiguities of one context and applying them to another.

Actually, your quote is generally attributed to The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, David Mermin, notes that when reviewing the three volumes of The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, he couldn't find any mention of it.

Other things Niels Bohr is reputed to have said;

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature.

Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.

So, in answer to your question, he probably didn't say anything of the sort, and if he did, it's unlikely that he meant that any brand of mystical woo is now on an equal footing to science.

People seem to be arguing across each other because of a failure to distinguish between morality (maxims, or duties), ethics (how we work out what maxims we should follow or what duty we have in any given situation), and meta-ethics (how we know what 'right' and 'wrong' actually are).

It is vacuously true that morals are subjective and require a brain to work out. Also, to say that morals vary across cultures tells us nothing useful because we have already established that morals are an attempt to proscribe what is 'right' in a given circumstance So obviously they will change over time and space as circumstances change.

What serious discussions on ethical Realism are about is whether ethics are universal (ie do we all use the same method for deriving morals), or whether meta-ethics positions are innate (ie do we all have the same concept of 'right' and 'wrong'). The notion that some cultures practice cannibalism, or that some cultures consider homosexuality a sin, or whatever, is entirely irrelevant to a discussion about ethical Realism, which is trying to get at the forces which motivate people to come up with any kind of moral at all.

In such a discussion, it is the fact that all cultures across all times have had some concept of right an wrong that is used as an argument in favour of ethical Realism.

I find it absolutely bizarre that people are advocating drawing a distinction between some realms of science (like vaccinations) and some metaphysical claims (like the existence of an Abrahamic God, or dualism).

I'm genuinely struggling to understand this. The pharmaceutical companies are one of the largest and most profitable sectors in the world. They have an absolutely proven record of hiding poor results, misinformation and bad research. Medicines once thought safe have actually, in the real world, turned out later to be dangerous. Only recently, roacutane (used for years for skin conditions) has been shown to cause Crohns disease in the long-term. So what I'm struggling with is why the idea that information from (or funded by) the pharmaceutical companies about the short to medium term safety of their own highly profitable product might not be entirely accurate is considered insane, but the idea that some supernatural being might be pulling all the strings, or that we have free-will derived from some magic realm no one can see, are considered legitimate topics for intelligent discussion.

If a man is poor and he obtains a huge loan to be replayed a 400% interest in 100 year's time, is he now rich?

The decimation of Native Americans was a result of diseases accidentally brought from the Old World, they weren't murdered by Whitey. — gurugeorge

Racist bullshit.

Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. — William Trent, William Trent's Journal at Fort Pitt

INVOICE for 1763 June
Levy, Trent and Company: Account against the Crown, Aug. 13, 1763[15]
"To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Vizt:
2 Blankets @ 20/ £299 099 0
1 Silk Handkerchef 10/
& 1 linnen do: 3/6 099 1399 6

General Amherst, July 8: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them."

Colonel Bouquet, July 13: "I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself."

Amherst, July 16: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race."

Bouquet, July 19: "all your Directions will be observed."
Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, ed. Stevens and Kent, ser. 21634, p. 161.

Francis Parkman, the first to research these events, described "the shameful plan of infecting the Indians" as "detestable".

The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians. The actual number of killed and wounded Indians must be very much higher than the number given... Fifty percent additional would be a safe estimate. — Census Bureau 1894

Basically, since we're all benefiting from some elements of stolen goods in the past (and that would include the "minorities"), it all pretty much cancels out — gurugeorge

So what mechanism do you imagine generously transfers property, mineral rights and resources from the people who conquered the land to those who were conquered. Did they just change their minds and give it back?

The reality is that all the factors contribute to "actually making" things - capital, ideas, labour, etc. And ideally, they all get paid compensation for the relative non-redundancy of their contribution to the final value of the product. — gurugeorge

Yes, exactly, and large amounts of capital are the most non-redundant contribution, which is why the investors in a business reap most rewards from it. This is incontrovertible fact, investors are richer than workers. So those with enough capital to invest get richer, capital to invest comes ultimately from the ownership of land and resources, which come ultimately from violent conflict.

If you like that system then go live in a poor neighbourhood and join in the gun battles, me I prefer a system where we resolve our conflicts over resources by political pressure of the type socialist thinkers advance.

Hmm. So you have adopted a moral position and you demand the science must find a way to support it? — apokrisis

Come on, a cursory glance over my argument will show that's not the case, you're just being disingenuous for effect. If it's come to that I've really no interest in the discussion any more. If there's one thing we've pretty firmly established in our exchange it's that the 'science' does not yet 'support' any one way of looking at it. It rules out several possible ways, but does not support one. We are therefore left with a choice as to what theory to hold, and to test, until it is refuted. That theory should be parsimonious, it should be based on existing theories, but beyond that the choice is ours as to which one we hold, and test first.

I may have met quite a few Muslims, I may have found them all to be aloof and rude, I may be tempted to form the theory that all Muslims are aloof and rude until such time as it is proven wrong, but aloofness and rudeness are difficult to judge in one meeting, they're complex contextual responses, so I could easily have been wrong. So I have a genuine choice of theory, I could hold that Muslims are aloof and rude, or that Muslims are just like all other cultures, a mixed bag. My choice of theory can then be guided by morality, the costs of being wrong, or the virtues cultivated by my beliefs.

At no point does one belief 'demand' anything of the science, if the science disproves it, then so be it, we move on, make another belief, but the science most definitely has not dis-proven the idea that the belief 'software' in animal's brains is just the same as ours, that our ability with language does not confer some categorical new way of thinking.

So it is entirely reasonable to hold to a theory that has been prompted by a moral sense of duty.

As I say, this area was also my specialist subject about 30 years ago (while oddly enough, computer science was where I was focused just before that). — apokrisis

That's the first time I've seen an appeal to authority fallacy where the authority is the person making the claim. Firstly, 30 years is a long time, most of the studies I've cited have been carried out in the last 30 years. Secondly, none of this relates to any area of expertise. As I said, this is not about whether animal language is different from human language, we both agree it is. This is about whether that difference causes a significant enough difference in our thought processes that the very holding of a belief is a different experience for a human. No amount of research in linguistics is going to tell you that. In fact, no research in the current literature on any subject is going to tell you that. Psychology might one day give us enough evidence to be forced to reject either one of our theories, but today, it's a philosophical discussion (hence the forum) about the merits of each theory, hence the moral dimension.

Imported? What do you think all those cheese plants in Wisconsin are for? — Bitter Crank

Sorry, I'm from England, we would never do anything as impolite as making somebody else's cheese! And now I hear () that engineers aren't that smart after all. This mystery just gets deeper and deeper. I'm beginning to suspect the Lizard-men at the centre of the earth.

Banned — jamalrob

Saw that coming.

Indeed, well said.

It clearly seems at present to be a bigger ,more worrisome phenomenon than the presence of a small minority of students who are affiliated with hard right , neo-nazi, white nationalist/supremacist type organizations . — Dachshund

Why, because Jordan Peterson (a known capitalist supporter) says it is? Shall we see what butchers think of the rise of vegetarianism next?

And terrorism, go to the Global Terrorist data base, and you find that worldwide the overwhelming majority of suicide terrorist attacks are committed by Islamic extremist groups". — Dachshund

No, go to the Global Terrorist database and search over a specific time frame, for a specific type of terrorist attack and you will find more attacks from a group which favour that specific type of attack and have become popular over the specific time frame you're interested in. It's hardly surprising given that the data had been filtered for those very criteria.

that different ethnic groups commit crimes at different rates. You can go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Look it up on their website. The homicide rate among African-American is about seven or eight times higher than it is among European Americans". — Dachshund

The per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese over the last decade matches almost exactly the rise in the number of civil engineering doctorates awarded. Why? Is it because cheese makes people cleverer? Or is it, just possibly, because engineering is becoming more popular as more opportunities open up to working class students, as does eating imported goods like mozzarella?

Again, who on the left is denying that crime in neighbourhoods with a high African American population is a problem. What they're denying is that this is in any way linked to race. The data that Pinker finds so "incontrovertible" does not say anything about cause, only correlation.

The kind of vocational interest tests of the kind your high school guidance counsellor gave you were given to millions of people, and men and women give different answers to what they wanna do for a living, and how much time they wanna allocate to family versus career and so on. — Dachshund

Let's try another one.

The tests being referred to here are done in late teenage years. Again, no one on the left is saying that men and women have homogeneous priorities at that age. Those who do make gender equality claims, claim that they are born equal but are so treated by society as to end up different. No one is disputing that a difference exists by teenage-hood.

capitalist societies are better than communist ones. — Dachshund

No, all the capitalist societies that we currently have are more favourable places to currently live than any of the communist societies we have ever had.

See the important difference between stating "incontrovertible facts" and making a political sales pitch.

As Michael says, no one on the left is claiming that North Korea is better than South Korea.

What they are (sometimes) saying is that capitalism is unsustainable, and a more socialist society may be required for long term survival. That it is possible to have a socialist society without becoming North Korea. That historical and political factors have been as much responsible for the state of current communist societies as the ideals of communism.

As ever, what polemicists like Pinker paint as "incontrovertible truths" turn out to be a lot more complicated when you take away the blatant politics.

I don't think we're going to make any progress here. We agree that human language is worlds away from other animals, you think that distance is so significant as to affect our thought process and requires a whole new language to describe its effects, I don't. It seems to me that evidence for the extent to which human language differs from that of other animals is redundant in this. It is a pragmatic argument about whether the knowledge that our 'beliefs' are fundamentally different from anything other animals have is useful in any sense.

Im arguing that the only use to which I've ever seen that kind of theory put is to denigrate animals in such a way as to justify their mistreatment. That is the reason why I'm opposed to it.

Ethically, I think that if there's even a chance that other animals think somewhat similarly to us (even if a much smaller version), then we owe them the benefit of the doubt, because the harm done by presuming a thinking creature is nothing but an automaton, is considerably worse than the harm done by mistaking an automaton for a thinking creature.

Yes, notice the Scandinavian countries are not involved in the first study you cited, probably to give the others a chance.

Hi. I haven't looked into this deeply (disclaimer), but I'm surprised if it's the case that scientific theories include terms like 'self' and 'free will.' — mrcoffee

I don't think I referred to either as 'scientific' theories. Although I'm not sure that would matter. I have quite a broad definition of what constitutes science, but I know others don't so I try to avoid ambiguous uses of the term.

And what is it that we call a person's 'self'? Can we pin down the word? Do we want to? — mrcoffee

We use the term all the time. "He wasn't himself", "self-confidence", "self-awareness". They all imply that there is a constant and unified thing such that a person could act in such a way as to be contrary, or untrue, to it. The psychological theory is that no such thing exists, that we are just a collection of contradictory impulses. The evidence seems to support such a theory.

What you refer to is not knowledge — Janus

I didn't say theories are not knowledge — Janus

So now I'm confused. Are you saying the the idea we do not have free-will or that the 'self' is an illusion is not a theory?

To say "there are evidence-based theories which suggest..." doesn't seem right. Theories don't suggest, they posit. Perhaps you mean 'there is evidence that suggests...'? — Janus

'Suggest' is listed in my thesaurus as a synonym for 'posit', so I'm not sure what the distinction is you're making here, perhaps you could clarify what the difference is, philosophically.

For me, scientific theories are knowledge only in the sense of knowing how, not in the sense of knowing that. The observations that underpin a theory are knowings that, and the actualities that are observed in experiments designed to test the predictions of a theory are knowings that. — Janus

Knowledge how X comes to be the case, is just knowledge that Y causes X. Again, I'm not sure I see the distinction. We might have degrees of certainty about our knowledge. We might be certain that the Earth orbits the Sun, but there are remaining uncertainties about the theory of gravity that is how the Earth orbits the Sun. That doesn't mean, by any standard use of the word, that the theory of gravity is not 'knowledge'. We cannot, after all, be certain the Earth orbits the Sun, it might be an illusion.

Knowledge is just justified belief. A theory which, when applied to some circumstance, reliably produces the expected results and is useful.

The theory that we have no unified 'self', nor 'free-will' would predict that in certain cases of brain damage, changes would take place to what we call a person's 'self', and they do. A theory that we have no free-will would expect to see something like the results in Libet's experiments, and it does. It would expect to see ad hoc rationalisations of sub-concious actions, and it does. It would expect to see strong links between environment and behaviour, and it does. It would expect to find no central brain activity associated with conciousness, and it doesn't. It's a good theory.

This doesn't mean it's true, or that it won't be replaced by a better theory. It may well be that dualism is right, it may well be that some mysterious aspect of quantum indeterminacy somehow allows for free-will, but none of those possibilities make it a poor theory, it's doing what good theories do. It's making predictions which turn out to be the case.

What alternative theory of free-will and conciousness can make predictions which turn out to be the case?

How different do you consider the Met Office's Cray XC40 supercomputer (capable of over 14,000 trillion arithmetic operations per second, containing a total of 460,000 computer cores) from a 1985 BBC Microcomputer? Personally they are as night and day to me. One can predict the weather five days in advance and make long term climate predictions using thousands of variables, the other can print the word "hello" across the page and run a game of 'bat and ball'. And yet, what word do we give to the thing that makes them do these things - a 'programme', some 'software'. We have not felt the need to create a new set of words to define just how immensely more capable the Cray XC40 is from it's predecessors. It still runs on 'hardware', 'processors', 'RAM'. I'm not a computer expert, but I bet some of it is still programmed in C+.

Why the linguistic consistency? Because there is no functional difference between the the two computers, one is just mind-blowingly better than the other at computing.

So it is with Humans and other animals. We are not unique in out use of language (loads of other animals communicate), we are not unique in our use of symbols (some other animals use them). Deception, abstraction, artistic expression, referencing, all have their representation in animals. We are just mind-blowingly better at it than all other animals. We can communicate stuff with language that is entire worlds away from anything other animals can do, whilst apes are struggling to learn how to ask for food, we can be discussing Aristotle. But how is that any different from the BBC Microcomputer crashing when you ask it to print "hello" and play 'Bat and Ball' at the same time, whilst the Cray XC40 predicts a snowfall next week whilst beating Gary Kasparov at chess? None of this difference requires that we possess something animals do not, it is sufficient that we are just better at it.

The principle of parsimony, therefore, should steer us toward the theory that all the processes in a human brain probably have their equivalent in animal brains unless the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates otherwise.

Thus with beliefs. We know we have thoughts that we identify as beliefs and that they can be very complex ones, like the Cray XC40's current processor state. So it follows, by parsimony, that animals probably have beliefs too, but much more simple ones, like the BBC Microcomputer's. Animals certainly seem to behave as if they have beliefs (the dog runs to where it 'believes' the stick is, even if the owner has in fact only mimicked throwing it). So no evidence presents itself to demonstrate that animals don't have private beliefs. I just cant see how any other conclusion isn't just anthropocentric wishful thinking.

You are trying to impose a law that is useless. — charleton

I'm not trying to impose a law, I simply said that I didn't think it was "horrific", whether is it either practical or necessary is another question.

It's discrimination for the sake of it. — charleton

No, it is (or it would be if anyone were to actually do it), discrimination in order to avoid spoilt ballots. Whether there is a need to avoid spoilt ballots is another question, I'm personally not convinced there is, but it's certainly not just "for the sake of" discrimination.

If every single person who was mentally ill, incapable of rational choice, or with any significant mental disability it would make no difference to the outcome of any election, as they are few in number and have a limited choice in candidates.
Unless you are trying to disallow millions of voters what is the point of discriminating against the most vulnerable people in society? — charleton

As I said above, I'm not arguing that it is necessary, I'm arguing that the principle is exactly the same one by which we disenfranchise young people and so is not, in principle, horrific. It may well be pointless in practice and so not worth even bothering with. It may well be that giving the vote to all the mentally ill is an excellent idea because it will make them feel good about themselves for the cost of very little harm to democracy, fine, but the principle of disenfranchising people who are probably incapable of making a rational choice is one which is already applied to about 12 million people in the UK, simply by virtue of their being under 18, it can hardly be labelled "horrific".

I can find the papers for you when I am back in the office tomorrow morning, but if you studied the matter, you must at least be familiar with predator calls, which are entirely symbolic, and their deceptive use in resource exploitation?

I assume that you too have an age limit in mind though? One that is not completely arbitrary? — charleton

I would say 12. There is limited research in the area, but what little there is tends to show that children from the age of 11ish are by-and-large capable of making rational choices.

There is a key difference between age and mental capacity which makes your analogy false. Age is wholly a linear spectrum where we have a clear case of growing capability. The same cannot be said of "mental disabilities" — charleton

I understand the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure what difference you think it makes. Surely both issues are about the fact that a certain group of people might not be able to make a rational decision. Otherwise we might as well give five year olds the vote, what other reason could there be not too.?

The idea that you would give insult to (maybe) millions of people to prevent them voting is horrific. — charleton

I don't think it is "horrific" to deny the vote to someone who is incapable of understanding what it is for and what their choices mean. I do think that if we are to allow the mentally ill to vote so long as they have the most basic grasp of what it means (which I agree with) then it is an horrific insult to a well educated and concerned 14 year old to be told that we have so little faith in them that we rate their capabilities below those of the seriously mentally ill.

I'm not saying that. What I would suggest is that even the mentally ill have political interests, and their voice is as valid as any one else. — charleton

As is the case with the vast majority of 16 year olds. Who are nonetheless disenfranchised.

Passing a test with all its problems is not a valid way to disenfranchise people. — charleton

And being a certain age is?

I'm not arguing here in favour of IQ testing, I'm arguing against the way in which such a suggestion is being vehemently argued against, whilst the equally arbitrary, and grossly unfair age limit is dismissed as fine with a wave of the hand.

I don't understand your argument here. You're saying that age is not entirely arbitrary, but no-one is suggesting that IQ tests are entirely arbitrary either, just that they are far from perfect, moderately arbitrary, we might say.

So what's your argument that the 'moderately arbitrary' age method is better than the 'moderately arbitrary' IQ test method?

The only qualification has to be the ability to register, and choose. — charleton

I expect a five year old could register and choose. I think you're missing the point here. Some kind of test of intellect is being applied in deciding who can votes, it's just that at the moment it's an entirely arbitrary one based on age. I think we could do better than that.

Yes, I’m familiar with the literature thanks. My opinion is that you overstate your case. — apokrisis

Yes, don't let's allow evidence to get in the way of our opinions, I must have forgotten where I was for a minute.

And you believe in God? — Agustino

It's almost as if religious people are just making this stuff up.

Oh for crying out loud, this is just PC cult indoctrination. — gurugeorge

Right, so did the Native Americans generously hand over the land and then voluntarily wipe out three quarters of their own population?

If you've actually got an argument, then make it, your own incredulity does not count as evidence.

in fact most investments of capital fail, — gurugeorge

Really? Is that why most stock brokers and investment bankers are poor, whilst all those people who actually make things are billionaires.

if you trace it back to its origins, it's some form of original acquisition out of the state of nature. — gurugeorge

No, the whole of America was stolen from the Native Americans, so every single non-native (and many natives) is trading in stolen property.

The entire industrial revolution was financed by resources stolen from the colonies, so all major industries are benefitting from the proceeds of crime.

wealth mostly comes either from the fiat creation of currency (which is basically a kind of legalized Ponzi scheme) or by people transforming things from less preferred to more preferred uses (which is the normal process of capitalism). — gurugeorge

No, if that were the case then artisans would be the wealthiest class. Wealth, in a capitalist system, comes from the investment of capital (the clue is in the name), capital is obtained by the ownership of property and the resources the rings.