A lot of depression and anxiety in younger people is due to worry about climate change, shall we not treat that depression (hopefully through cognitive therapy only) because it's not their fault? That doesn't sit right with me. — Benkei

I prescribe carbon neutrality, all round. This is a case where it becomes absolutely clear that treating the individual is unable to get at the pathogen because the pathogen is societal. The cure for the individual is to join extinction rebellion, there's nothing like a just war for raising morale.
To treat the sufferer is to invalidate their feelings and becomes an antidemocratic oppressive measure. Thus we see how inevitably psychology becomes a political tool.

(The irony is that homosexuality's original classification as a mental illness was due primarily to social and cultural biases and presuppositions in the absence of really any relevant empirical support, — busycuttingcrap

That's not irony, that's normal procedure. The irony is that you think it supports the probity and social independence of psychology.

See here, for another conspiracy theory:

Showalter described how the prevailing attitudes toward the mentally ill, and toward women in particular, were influenced by the social changes of each historical phase and how these attitudes affected the thinking and treatment used by the psychiatrists.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1938342/

It's amusing really, you use the label 'conspiracy theory' and other derogatory labels just the same way psychology always has and continues to use medicalised slander to delegitimise critical views of its practice. Disagreeing with psychology shows 'lack of insight' or 'paranoid delusions'; the label is the argument, diagnosis, and evidence all in one.

The gay liberation[a] movement was a social and political movement of the late 1960s through the mid-1980s that urged lesbians and gay men to engage in radical direct action, and to counter societal shame with gay pride.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_liberation

First the campaign.

The decriminalisation of homosexuality was one of multiple liberal social reforms to be passed under Wilson's 1966-70 government and the wider move towards a "permissive society".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Offences_Act_1967

Then the law change.

In 1974, the DSM was updated and homosexuality was replaced with a new diagnostic code for individuals distressed by their homosexuality. Distress over one's sexual orientation remained in the manual, under different names, until the DSM-5 in 2013.

Then the science.

And the suggestion that the declassification of homosexuality and/or gender dysophoria as mental illnesses was done on the basis of "social mores" or political agendas and not evidence or valid scientific/medical considerations (nevermind the extensive body of evidence/medical studies cited as the basis for those decisions) lands pretty comfortably in conspiracy theory territory, in my estimation... and especially when this is suggested on the basis of no evidence whatsoever (as it has been here). This is the stuff of vaccine "skeptics" and flat earthers, not people interested in philosophy, and not least because its simply lazy. — busycuttingcrap

Don't let history get in the way of your ranting scientistic ideology.

So some kind of comparison is in the essence of identity, right? — fdrake

I want to be picky, because it affects the direction I would like to turn us towards. It is ubiquitous, it is universally instilled from birth, but it is not essential. "Be good for Mummy." is the first commandment to alienate oneself. It is irresistible because the infant's dependency is total, and Mother's love is conditional. The rift between unacceptable essence and role-conforming performance is universal, and thus normal, and considered sane. To steal Smail's book title, This is the origins of unhappiness.

Some people think this is all a conspiracy theory apparently. :yikes:

people do have predispositions, perhaps some bodily, which constrain how patterns can be internalised into identity, which constraints work and which don't. That manifests as a constraint on someone's propensities for development, who they become depends on how they're set up to grow and set up to adapt, even though all the potential is not determined in advance. — fdrake

My daughter, aged 4, doesn't want to be taken to school by her mixed race mother, but by her white dad. She wants to be white but isn't. This is what she has learned in 2 weeks at kindergarten.

I don't want to call being mixed race brown and frizzy-haired a predisposition, nor being whatever sex one is; what is internalised as identity is other people's feelings about what they identify one as being. There is a functional body image of course, that develops and that is already complex, but it becomes overlaid with this cognitive internalised identification and that is where the pride and shame and desire to be different begin.

I don't think one can distinguish, at that level, (or at age 4) what aspects of the body can be reasonably developed, and what cannot. This results in all kinds of contradictions that play out in individuals, internalised from the contradictions in society.

A simple example is food. Food is portrayed as orgasmically pleasurable, and a huge industry of salty, spicy, sugary, fatty, carbohydrate heavy instant foods are pushed onto people. At the same time, the ideal of beauty is heroin chic, starvation diet thin and also pushed as the path to happiness. Anorexia and morbid obesity are the individual manifestations of this social contradiction. Neither, though, I would say, has its origin in an individual predisposition, it is all learned and internalised. "I am strong willed and starve myself to death, you are a weak-willed lard-arse." And the strong or weak will is also an identity internalised from the emotions of others. So the distinction between the anorexic and the morbidly obese is about as significant as which side of the rope the tightrope-walker falls.

People do not like to hear this very much; they have been sold the rational self-interested man in control identity, and having bought into the franchise, object to having it exposed as a fraud.

I suspect it is pretty difficult to get treatment for a mental illness, without being diagnosed as a person with a mental illness. — busycuttingcrap

Cut the crap lad. Respond to the position I have presented or not as you please, but if you want to respond make a point at least.

How does one go about leaving this rabbit hole? Like i have a normal life but this is nagging on me. — trogdor

My commiserations on your normal life. You might find some relief from the self-nagging here. It begins Thus: --

FREEDOM FROM THE SELF, and therefore the search of reality, the discovery and the coming into being of reality, is the true function of man. Religions play with it in their rituals and rigmarole – you know, the whole business of it. But if one becomes aware of this whole process, then there is a possibility for the newly awakened intelligence to function. In that, there is not self-release, not self-fulfilment, but creativeness. It is this creativeness of reality, which is not of time, that sets one free from all the business of the collective and the individual. Then one is really in a position to help create the new.
Krishnamurti in Ojai 1949, Talk 7

But back to the matter at hand: do you think the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was a mistake? Should it still be classified as a mental illness, in your view? And was declassifying gender dysphoria as a mental illness also a mistake? — busycuttingcrap

I think the class 'mental illness' is a social construct, as I already said. This means that there is no fact of the matter such that anything is or is not a mental illness, and one has or does not have anything identifiable like a virus or a wound. I would prefer to follow David Smail's psychology and talk instead about 'distress' and 'unhappiness'. Sources of distress are not defects of individuals at all, but defects in relationships. Homosexuals used to have an unhappy relationship with society, and now it is a little better. But anyone who deviates from our sexual stereotypes is liable to have a difficult relation to our society, because our society is very rigid still about sexuality, and many other things.

In general, I think the identification of any person as mentally ill is unhelpful. What is 'wrong' with homosexuals, intersex, schizophrenics, autistics, is that we cannot relate to them, and that is our problem at least as much as theirs. And this is not a particularly wild and wacky view, but has been a thread in psychology for a very long time.

So, out of curiosity, since the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was (apparently) based on social mores and not evidence, would you say it was therefore an erroneous decision? — busycuttingcrap

I am a moral realist of sorts, but I think the moral certainty of some moral positions being taken up here is dangerous. But I am not a mental illness realist. Mental illness and mental health are social constructs.

Crime is anti social behaviour and harmful regardless of whether it is made legal. The crimes men are committing are objectively harmful. — Andrew4Handel

You just happen to be wrong about this. It used to be a crime to commit acts of sodomy; now it is not, here in the UK. It used to be a very very serious crime now it is an entirely personal matter nobody's business but the participants'. Except in those other countries where it is still a very serious crime. What is anti-social depends entirely on the society in question. It used to be a crime not to attend church on Sunday. It used not to be a crime to beat your wife and your children. Times change; yesterday's hero is today's villain.

We can argue about what is objectively harmful to what subject. I might agree that corporal punishment is harmful, or that surgery is harmful, because physically, it damages the organism, but whether or when it might be beneficial in the longer run to the individual or to society in general is still up for grabs. I had a minor surgery for a hernia and I still bear the scar and feel some residual pain. But on the plus side, my guts are not bulging out of my belly risking life-threatening strangulated hernia. I'm not going to make the argument in favour of corporal punishment, but it can be made precisely on the grounds of your complaint about objectively harmful behaviour of unrestrained males. They need discipline.

Women committing less crime and carrying and caring for children is not a social construct. If people value human life and aren't antinatalist then the fact that we all grew inside a woman and only biological women can carry and grow a child is very relevant fact. It is one of the reasons women are more vulnerable in some ways and you would imagine it would raise the value of women but it has not. — Andrew4Handel

It is a social construct, because crime is a social construct created by law.

Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness from the DSM due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, if that was what you were attempting to refer to. — busycuttingcrap

[sarcasm}Of course it was. And the same with drapetomania. [/sarcasm]

mental health conditions are medical conditions, — busycuttingcrap

This is not a fact of nature, it's a social construct. this is demonstrated by the fact that you already pointed out that what is and isn't a mental health condition changes from time to time, not in the light of evidence, but in the light of changing social mores.

"It is no part of anyone's essence to be ashamed of themselves or have any negative feelings about their body, (or for that matter, any pride or positive feelings). Such feelings can only arise in a social setting through comparison with others. — unenlightened

Therefore, insofar as the topic is positive essential characteristics of females, there is nothing to be said. Any positivity is a social construct, as is the negativity. One might think that reproductive ability is an essential positive, but the existence of abortion legal or illegal, and the stigmatisation of offspring born out of wedlock contradicts this. Beauty - is of course in the eye of the pornographer. One is left with motherhood and apple pie. And again the difference between noble service and ignoble servitude is all in the eye of the beholder.

Or possibly in the ass of the pontificator.

it may equally be their essence showing itself. — fdrake

I'll make a bold claim, that some might want to dispute, (but I hope not) in an attempt to establish some semi solid ground for the debate:

"It is no part of anyone's essence to be ashamed of themselves or have any negative feelings about their body, (or for that matter, any pride or positive feelings). Such feelings can only arise in a social setting through comparison with others."

Alien limb syndrome is almost an exception, but to the extent there is negative feeling, it is precisely because it is not felt as oneself.

My instinct on that is that transitioning isn't seen as mandatory, just as permissible. People seem to want it despite societal expectations and perceptions of ickiness. "Thou shalt not be icky" and "thou shalt respect no one who desires the ick" are hallmarks of conformity pressure away from the seen-as-icky thing, like the true variation in feminine bodies or homosexuality... But the seen-as-icky thing in this case is transitioning, and the transitioned body. "Thou shalt ick" is the opposite tendency. — fdrake

My instincts are different. 'Thou shalt not be icky' is indeed a powerful commandment, but at the same time, anyone who does not conform to extremely narrow stereotypes of appearance and behaviour is already icky, and thereby in physical danger all day, every day. And under this lifelong threat, people "choose" whatever desperate measure promises a chance of sainted 'normality' and if not real acceptance, at least some blessed invisibility. The hatred of difference is already visible even in this very tolerant discussion site.

it is the decision of some other person to alter their own body, with the aid of skilled professionals willing to perform the operations. — Vera Mont

It is an individual decision whether or not to obey commands at gunpoint. But guns are often persuasive, and so too are many other forms of pressure such as ridicule, bullying, exclusion, and so on.

You don't have an argument there, you are just reciting the received opinions and describing the status quo. Why isn't surgery appropriate in some mental cases, but appropriate in others? Why do the status of mental conditions come and go according to the moral strictures of the day? Try just a little critical thinking here. It's not as if it was the mental health professionals were in the vanguard of the change of attitude to homosexuality. In particular, try, please.
to be a bit less anal in your stigmatising put-downs. If you have a thing about assholes, try CBT before you opt for surgery.

So, if a man wishes his penis removed, should he be granted that right, and, if so, should the same right be afforded the man who no longer wants his right arm? — Hanover

Certainly that is not a question I have given a reasoned answer to, but I have raised it, and it does seem to merit some kind of response. It seems the social pressure to enlarge breasts, lips, buttocks by surgery is regarded as benign by this predominately male group. Again I wonder if there is any reason at all, more than 'what is socially accepted is acceptable.'. It looks complacent if not partisan, to me.

I'm disgusted with your bigotry. Happy? — Benkei

I'm not happy with your disgust.

Gender dysphoria is a legitimate medical condition, — busycuttingcrap

This is just a tad suspect. It is a mental health condition. Alien limb syndrome is not treated by surgery, and generally it seems that to treat psychological conditions with surgery is suspect, at the least. One might better compare such surgical interventions more with cosmetic surgery than knee surgery or the like.

@Andrew4Handel's situation is, as I understand it, that of someone who is not gender-typical, and therefore feels potentially the social pressure to undergo such surgeries, just as women are pressured socially towards conforming to a physical ideal of youth and beauty through surgery. As such Andrew has a certain authority as a directly affected person, and a particular right to express his concerns.

It is at least legitimate to wonder whether it is ethical to allow, let alone encourage conformity to such social norms through surgery, and to pretend that individual wishes in such matters are not very heavily socially constructed would be ridiculous.

FGM is outlawed because it results entirely from social pressure, and the relation to gender dysphoria is obvious. The tendency to overemphasise the autonomy of the individual and ignore the huge force of social pressures is itself the result of a current social pressure to conform. Body shaming is the basis of a huge, huge industry, that pretends it bears no relation to those primitive customs.

To save on rope in these hard times, may I suggest a pin?

What sayest thou? — Agent Smith

Fuck off, frankly.

Numbering claims does not make them more tenable, and giving a random hypothesis a fancy name does not add to its credibility. Start speaking more responsibly and with more care, and language will magically heal itself.

Really? Is that your best shot? Parody? Never mind then.

The cart is pulling the horse. — Vera Mont

Indeed it is, and the horse equally, (or a little bit more, hopefully,) is pulling the cart, and the tension of pulling is the relation that makes something of them. I'm waiting for someone who disagrees to tell me something about something that does not relate it to another thing. But I'm not holding my breath.

The actions one performs, his beliefs, his proximity to the rest of the world are secondary to, and indeed contingent upon, the thing that performs them. — NOS4A2

The opposite is the case. things are secondary and intuited from their relations. Look and you can see it is the case How do you come to know the nature of man? Or the nature of a duck? By relating as observer to observed. The relation of observation gives rise to the object and the subject.

But this is way to theoretical for this thread.

If you ask someone who they are, or what they are, they will typically give you some of a name, nationality, some ancestry maybe, occupation, hobbies, address, age, medical history, significant others, bibliography, favourite music, ice cream flavour, etc, religious affiliation, political ditto, and so on and on for as long as you like.

You’re Agender but don’t identify as Agender? :chin:
— praxis

I would be labelled agender by someone else. It is a bit like atheism relying on theism.

I can't make sense of the non grammatical form of gender.

I think there is a difference between desiring to be X and the ability to be X. If I desired to appear more of a typical man I probably couldn't and that would probably mean trying to project a (gender?) image through aping someone else. — Andrew4Handel

Now here, I think Andrew is trying to convey to us something of his own feelings about himself as a gendered/sexual being. Which is that he finds he cannot really relate to it, at all. he fails to have any feelings about it. He is like the famous Buddhist in Northern Ireland, being asked if he is a Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist. And when you have to answer questions of identity that make no sense to you, you are liable to get into trouble.


Facilities in the US used to be racialised, now they are only gendered. And woe betide you if you went into the wrong place. Even the most intimate and private features of the person - nay, especially the most intimate and private features of the person, are the most rigidly defined and enforced socially, both by law and by custom, by police and vigilante.

You have to be one or the other, Protestant or Catholic, Male or Female, Republican or Democrat; and if you are not - that is to say, you do not feel yourself to be - one thing or the other as socially defined, the feelings you are left with are loneliness, confusion, and fear. Because you have to use the facilities regardless, you have to live on one side of the wall (or the tracks) or the other, regardless.

The most highly policed aspect of personal identity of all, is of course the most personal of all, one's thoughts. A couple of psychiatrists can lock you up forever without a trial. So think happy thoughts, children.

But something actual has to exist as a discreet entity before it can relate to anything else that exists. — Vera Mont

Relations are actual. I get my 3 ducks in a row; their relation is being "in a row". That's an actual row of existing ducks, but not 'three ducks and a row' 4 existing things.

Who said a person doesn't relate to the world? But something actual has to exist as a discreet entity before it can relate to anything else that exists. — Vera Mont

I am saying that you cannot say anything about your personal identity as unique inner being, but only describe your relations to the world, and this is because language has to be public, not private.

But surely it may have turned out that Superman had taken on a different secret identity? — Banno

Superman might have taken on a different secret identity - Lois Lane, even. But in such case, Lois Lane would not be the woman we know who loves Superman, and Clark Kent would not be the man we know as 'Clark Kent' (viz, Superman), but a mere bespectacled reporter of no interest to us. But given that it turns out that Clark Kent is Superman in disguise, necessarily, Clark Kent is Superman.

As usual, necessity doesn't constrain reality, only language. 2 Rabbits + a lot of lettuce and carrots = 137 rabbits + a lot of droppings. Blame it on the boogie.

All the posts by unenlightened are necessarily unenlightened's posts. If my account was hacked, there might be posts with my name on them, but they would not be my posts. Contrarywise, if I had a sock-puppet account, all those posts would necessarily be unenlightened's posts too, though they had another name on them.

Personal identity is not relational; it’s actual. — NOS4A2

Relations are actual. For example, my relation to my identity card is that I do not have one. Your relation to my identity card is blithe assumption that there is such a thing. Knowing is itself relational between knower and known.

Tell us about this actual personal identity that does not relate to the world. Of course it is impossible, because to speak at all is to relate to the public world. A private identity is nothing other than the way a fragmented consciousness relates to itself - a mere beetle in a box.

Eg: "I've been to all the Star Wars movies, have read all the books, but I've never been a Star Wars fan", it would be improbable behaviour, but doesn't strike as a contradiction in terms as the felt account's assertion did — fdrake

"I had to, it's my job as a film critic." The well known 'jobsworth' defence.

A being who cannot see his own ears has less of an ability to determine his own identity, I’m afraid, than someone else — NOS4A2

Have you heard of a device called a mirror? It's like a 'someone else', but without the agenda.

Identity is relational. I am exactly like you in my uniqueness. You are one of us, unless you are one of them. There is always a mutuality of connection or disconnection. Your behaviour and feeling are identified in relation to my behaviour and feeling. Identity is irrevocably social, except to the extent that it is ineffable. Even Crusoe only becomes significant in relation to firstly his origins, and secondly his relation to the deprivation of the social, and thirdly to his 'other' as Friday. The desert island trope is the exemplar of the social nature of identity - the limit of individuality. Crusoe is the absolute monarch of nowhere.

Thank you for sharing!

Any comments before I word vomit more? — fdrake

If the SS say you're a Jew, it really doesn't make much difference what you feel, say, or do. Just get in the cattle truck. Psychiatrists, social workers, doctors immigration officials and judges are all empowered to decide your identity for you. Or indeed against you.

It's all about original sin. Whether you Adam and Eve it or not, ever since, fig leaves have been de rigueur. It is mandated to hide the crucial aspect of one's social identity. And yet it is also mandated to display it in coded form. You must not see my penis, but you must see my top-hat and tails.

The reason Sub-Saharan Africans were enslaved and Arabs, Indians, etc were not, is the shameless nakedness of the latter 'proved' that they were less than human. we should not pretend that we are beyond such things, when the whole organisation of society right down to toilet facilities rests on such primitive notions.

There is a natural disgust for human waste - cattle also avoid eating around their own droppings. this is extended to menstrual fluids, and becomes gendered such that self-disgust and its projection onto the world is a particular female proclivity. See also for example, trypophobia.

The interweaving of instinct, social conditioning, and individual variability all contribute to the establishment of personal identity. We are coyly pretending that we are talking generally about all kinds of identity, but we all know somewhere, that what matters in any encounter with otherness, is to accurately identify the range of appropriate responses. Here you come, and shall I run from you, fight you, fuck you or eat you? Or some combination of these? Knowing the difference between a legitimate MD and a quack, or between a policeman and a postman is also potentially useful, but a minor, secondary question.

There are primal fears, and fundamental taboos in play in this discussion. The careful exposure of these to the insight of all participants is the prerequisite for anything approaching a rational or philosophical analysis.

Failing that, we are, alas, reduced to mere politics.

I find sometimes that the only way to have a sensible conversation is by talking to myself. Random elements are always a good way to start a conversation, and generally one will find in whatever arbitrary stimulus a connection with whatever is on one's mind. Rorschach ink blots, tarot cards, I Ching, and the Bible have all been well used for such purposes. But I would caution that occasionally one should also engage with other mortals to inoculate one's wisdom against the folly of the world.

It's a community. It doesn't matter too much if I am wasting my time; it is multiply more serious If I am wasting everyone's time. The community knows and understands more than any individual member, and a good part of the enjoyment is finding bits and pieces of wisdom from disparate fields brought into relationship in the discussions of others. The best threads for me are always the ones I am not competent to participate in.

Do not try to constrain being with words. Constrain your words rather to what is.

Well to get the op's 'name the fallacy' bit out of the way, it's a very old and all too common fallacy of "refusing to agree".

My suggestion is that mathematics is the study of abstract arrangement, such that absolutely any world comes under its purview. So neither is its effectiveness unreasonable, nor is it an invention of the mind. I mean fancy inventing that there are 17 wallpaper patterns. It's just untidy! Of course if we lived in a world where wallpaper was not a thing because geometry was different or whatever, we may not have been interested to find out about wallpaper patterns, but then some other 'construct' would become relevant, and that would be 'unreasonably effective.'

If you are, I disagree. — T Clark

Tell me more; disagreement excites me.

Mathematical descriptions are capable of describing the world because they have an ontological status in the world; ie the world is mathematical in itself. If this weren't the case, mathematical descriptions would be useless. — Hallucinogen

What sort of world would it be, if mathematical descriptions did not apply? Mathematics can cope with analogue or digital, perfect order or total chaos and anything between, any number of dimensions including fractional numbers of dimensions, different geometries... and I don't doubt that new mathematics can and will be invented to describe more outlandish worlds than have yet been imagined.

Let X be a world indescribable mathematically, - only God could begin to conceive such a thing. :wink:

But it's not a problem for me — universeness

Clearly not. And if you do not have a problem, I can offer no solution.

I leave the judgement of who is nefarious and who fights the nefarious to others such as yourself. — universeness

Yes, once you have removed all the differences, it is impossible to make a judgement.

And yet you do make a judgement, as do I. but my judgement is that some acts are bad; violence, torture, rape, deception, you know the usual stuff. And because good people do not do bad things, bad people have the advantage of being able to be good when it suits them and bad when it suits them more. Now sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils, and sometimes we can disagree about such complexities. Nevertheless, the imbalance remains; indeed it has to remain in order for there to be a moral order. If evil was always punished and good was always rewarded, then being good would be mere common-sense and evil would be silly. That is why the religious rewards and punishments were always located "elsewhere".

But your problem is that you are trying to incorporate a moral framework into a crude scientism, and failing to do it, and then just inventing the frankly contradictory notion that good triumphs over evil on that material, self-interest level. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

By the way, WW2 was not about saving the Jews, because the final solution was not implemented until later, nor to stop fascism, which was already in place in Spain well before 1939. Fascist parties were alive and well in the UK and The US and doubtless elsewhere, and were at the least well tolerated by the governments. It was a power struggle, not a crusade. The system of mass starvation in concentration camps, used so successfully by the British in South Africa, only became the icon of evil when used by Johnny Foreigner.

The 'good' people are perfectly capable of being as devious as the nefarious, if they have to. — universeness

Then they are no different from bad people. If there is no difference in behaviour, what is the difference? Is it a matter of belief? Innate superiority? Or are you just saying that good people are people who don't oppose me and my team?

Do we know anything about aliens? — Tom Storm

They're illegal, I think.

can you think of any cases where the ship would not be considered the same ship? — tomatohorse

When the ship was discovered, it was at first thought to be the ship of Theseus, but tree-ring analysis and carbon dating unequivocally showed that it was of a later date, and a mere replica of the original.

Philosophers hate vagueness and 'it depends' answers, and that's why these questions trouble them so much. So your obviously correct analysis will irritate rather than satisfy. Well done!

It's unfortunate your species has disappointed you to such an extent Vera. But, I have to accept, that you do hold the opinon, that the power of the nefarious, will always have the upper hand over the powers of good. But, I think you are totally wrong in that assessment. — universeness

That is odd. It seems quite undeniable that the power of the good is reduced by moral scruples and the nefarious have more options available; if it were not so, there would be no difference between them. One can point to the cyber wars where security is always playing catch-up to hackers, for example. Or if you want to be mathematical about things, game theory demonstrates that in many cases of the "prisoner's dilemma" sort, virtue (as cooperation) cannot succeed against vice.

I would say that science has great value, and can study values as human attributes. But it cannot produce values of itself, but relies on values of truth and honesty and openness, and so on, that people have as social beings, in order to function. These values are not demonstrated by science, but presumed. The 'success' of science might recommend these values to pragmatists, but that is also not part of the scientific project; such recommendations might equally come from pop-stars or monks or successful psychopaths.