How can this even be a question at this point? — Wayfarer
What I object to is the insulting suggesting that it is not even 'allowed' for someone to hold those beliefs. — Pseudonym
I don't think that's a bad thing, but it seems pointless to me unless there is some conclusion at the end of the process, and presuming there is, some of the things thus examined must end up passing the test. — Pseudonym
The authority of science (in certain areas) might well be one of those things that pass the test surely? — Pseudonym
I don't know if you've read Harris, but his work is built upon quite a firm foundation of Ethical Naturalism that goes all the way back to Aristotle (in some form). It's really not just 'assuming 'consequentialism', it's building on the work of those who have argued in favour of it quite persuasively, which is surely all any philosophy can do. Also, I agree with most of what Harris has to say, except that I'm broadly a virtue ethicist. I don't really find the consequensialism necessary to the point he's making about science and morality. It could equally be applied, as Phillipa Foot does, to which virtues it is necessary to cultivate. — Pseudonym
So the only place where we can differ is that you want to treat the private ineffable experience of the individual as some kind of reliable interior evidence - for a communally-defined externalist methodology. — apokrisis
Which would be Romanticism in a nutshell. It's art if I think it is art ... even if the whole notion of "art" is a form of life, a language game. — apokrisis
It's just like science in other words. Though science pretends to be much more democratic in its admission criteria - and indeed, it often is.
You say - "Corroboration would consist in universal agreement; the inability of any suitably good-willed and unbiased observer to disagree once they have been presented with, and understood, the evidence."
You must know that the art world doesn't operate with this kind of open-minded good will and lack of bias. And the art world justifies that by saying it is all subjective in the end anyway.
So the human artistic impulse is a bad example for your case.
I agree we certainly do feel something when we approach a great work of art with a correctly cultivated mindset. It is not as if we can get eliminativist about that aesthetic response.
But feeling an aesthetic delight at clever solutions to difficult problems is something all our creative endeavours share in common. It is as true of science and maths.
So how does one critique a philosophy then? — Pseudonym
Where in that question is any instruction about what philosophy 'should' demonstrate? I'm just asking if it can. — Pseudonym
I was pointing out the differences between the arts and the sciences in terms of the ability to achieve, or at least approach, universal consensus. Nothing you have said touches on that point in any way signifiant enough to refute it, as far as I can tell. — Janus
Art consists in saying something in a suggestive or evocative way, or in a metaphorical or allegorical way, rather than in a logically rigorous way, about the human situation, about the aspects of being that we care about. — Janus
...the cultural rationalization and devaluation of the mystical apparent in modern society. The concept was borrowed from Friedrich Schiller[1] by Max Weber to describe the character of modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society, where scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and where processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, where for Weber, "the world remains a great enchanted garden".
So within that ‘enchanted garden’, art evokes the archetypes and mythological re-enactments of the great themes and tragedies of culture. — Wayfarer
As for the notion of ‘collective construction’ - it’s certainly true that most of us inhabit a kind of ‘consensus realiity’ which is precisely that. But what that doesn’t accomodate is ‘the boundless’ - the unconditioned, the immeasurable. That is outside of the ‘constructed’ worldview (symbolised in Oriental culture as renunciation, ‘the forest’.) Probably rather too ‘religious’ for your liking but ought to be said, nonetheless. — Wayfarer
I'm simply agreeing with Janus - that art has more than simply or only a social dimension, even though it does have a social dimension. — Wayfarer
I can see that that particular type of purpose is risky. There are other sorts of purpose one can adopt through philosophy that are less harmful though. I had in mind things like Sartre's use of the absolute existential freedom that is imposed upon us to create one's own authentic self, or Camus's rebellion against the absurdity of the world, or a Bentham-inspired drive to do what one can to reduce the suffering in the world. Perhaps, like the philosophies themselves, there are some that are helpful and some that are harmful to the world at large, and it behoves (sp?) others to try to talk people out of adherence to purposes that are harmful.I think my personal line would, however, be crossed by 'purpose'. The trouble with 'purpose' is it is future-set and that opens up too much possibility for excuse; "your reward's in heaven, don't worry about the state of things now", "yes, the revolution/war will bring death and destruction, but it's all for a grander purpose". I can see the benefits, but the risks are too great for my liking. — Pseudonym
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" — Pseudonym
the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities. By stripping ecclesiastical authority of its credibility on factual matters, they cast doubt on its claims to certitude in matters of morality. The scientific refutation of the theory of vengeful gods and occult forces undermines practices such as human sacrifice, witch hunts, faith healing, trial by ordeal, and the persecution of heretics. The facts of science, by exposing the absence of purpose in the laws governing the universe, force us to take responsibility for the welfare of ourselves, our species, and our planet. For the same reason, they undercut any moral or political system based on mystical forces, quests, destinies, dialectics, struggles, or messianic ages.
Art, culture, and society are products of human brains. They originate in our faculties of perception, thought, and emotion, and they cumulate and spread through the epidemiological dynamics by which one person affects others.
The moral worldview of any scientifically literate person—one who is not blinkered by fundamentalism—requires a radical break from religious conceptions of meaning and value.
‘Dimension’ in the sense of ‘an aspect or mode of existence or lived reality’. — Wayfarer
It literally means to measure — apokrisis
I don't intend to ban your view from Philosophy. — PossibleAaran
I'd be interested to see, though, any convincing example of science answering traditional philosophical questions. — PossibleAaran
When you say "Ethical Naturalism", what exactly do you mean? There are several things which go under that name. None of the views I associate with that label are ones which can be established by scientific experiment. They are all argued for Philosophically, and so it may be that this debate about Harris is a distraction from the main topic. — PossibleAaran
No, I wouldn't want you to think that I thought that of you personally, I'm just arguing against the pejorative use of the term which seems to me to be aimed at dismissing the position by means other than mature argument. I hope that's clear. — Pseudonym
So when I say science can answer the questions of philosophy, I am making that claim on the presumption that if you keep asking 'why?' somewhen you will end up just making a statement of belief. — Pseudonym
I don't think science can solve that problem, nor do I think philosophy can. I've yet to hear a convincing argument that such a problem can ever be solved by any means. — Pseudonym
What I believe science can do, is push back the amount of belief statements which need to be made. — Pseudonym
but I really think the interest now is in questions which remain unanswered, should we investigate those by the scientific method or not? — Pseudonym
That being said, the idea, with ethical naturalism, is that it can be demonstrated by falsifiable theory, that most humans simply are the way ethical naturalists describe them. — Pseudonym
This presumption of yours is itself a philosophical position, and one which many philosophers of the past would have disagreed with you (these days I think your view is much more popular). If you hold that science can answer all Philosophical questions, one might expect you to claim that this position of yours is at least testable by scientific method. — PossibleAaran
You think that science cannot provide such reasons, and that Philosophy can't either. As I pointed out above, this is itself a Philosophical position, and so, unless it is one you arrive at by "the method of science", whatever that turns out to be, then your claim that science can answer every philosophical question turns out to be in conflict with other views of yours. — PossibleAaran
I think that's right, but I'd also insist that Philosophy can do that too if Philosophers set their minds to do it. — PossibleAaran
Which contemporary philosophical questions can be answered by scientific methods? All of them? All of the ones that can be answered at all? You tell me. — PossibleAaran
I'm still not sure what you mean by "Ethical Naturalism" and so I have no idea whether it can really be tested by scientific theory. One view going under that label today is the view that the phrase "morally good" ordinarily means something like "maximizes well-being". Vague as this still is, it would be empirically testable. Ask people what they mean by "morally good" and see what they say. Since a large part of the world is still religious, however, I greatly doubt that they mean anything like this by "morally good". But I don't think this view about the meaning of words is what you meant to defend. — PossibleAaran
Heh, yeah you're missing the point because you're jumping ahead of it. Be patient. How is tithing a moral issue? Why would you choose to tithe, or not?Whether to give a tithe to the poor might be an example, I'm not sure where this is leading, obviously you're not thinking I'd be unable to come up with a moral dilemma, so maybe I'm missing your point here? — Pseudonym
I'm not sure that I'm following you. Natural selection "selected" the traits in organisms that maximizes procreation and survival. Each organism has it's own goals and because it shares its genes with other members of its species, it will share many goals with its members. It is when the individual goal comes into conflict with the goals of another that a moral issue arises, or when you are deciding which path to take that will maximize your happiness. Our actions can have an effect on others and the consequences may not be conductive to happiness in the long-run as opposed to the short-run. So it is a matter of choosing the right path to achieve happiness for yourself, not others.Now the issue is, can you have both? Can you maximise the satisfaction of your desires. again this is not the objective because it 'should' be, it simply is, like it or not, you're a biological machine and you're going to do what you're going to do. Again, the theory is that science can (eventually) answer that question. If we know what sorts of thing really satisfy the desires we seem to have, the extent to which they do so, how long such satisfaction lasts etc. then we can derive strategies which maximise satisfaction. — Pseudonym
I admit that I've not read every page in this discussion, so forgive me if this point has been addressed. I've heard scientists such as Lawrence Krauss say things along the lines of "I don't believe that P, I know that P." However, if knowledge is justified true belief (or something in that neighborhood), to know that P entails that one believes that P. Thus, all knowledge statements are statements of belief. It is a different matter, of course, to claim "I don't merely believe that P, I know that P."That's what I mean by saying that all philosophical questions ultimately end up with a statement of belief, rather than an unequivocal answer. That assertion I do have scientific evidence for - My hypothesis is that all philosophical questions end up requiring a fundamental statement of belief, my test is to look through all the philosophical questions that have ever been asked, my hypothesis has yet to be falsified because I have yet to find a philosophical question which has an unequivocal answer not requiring some belief statement. — Pseudonym
Be patient. — Harry Hindu
How is tithing a moral issue? Why would you choose to tithe, or not? — Harry Hindu
It is when the individual goal comes into conflict with the goals of another that a moral issue arises, or when you are deciding which path to take that will maximize your happiness. — Harry Hindu
It is a different matter, of course, to claim "I don't merely believe that P, I know that P." — Arkady
No matter our level of justification or certitude in making an affirmative claim, our statement boils down to saying (even if only tacitly) "I believe such-and-such." — Arkady
Where's this line of questioning going? It seems a bit random, some insight into where you're heading might help. — Pseudonym
as merely Realism, without providing an argument that the line points to Realism. And that makes it okay to say? Not quite. This is a philosophy thread. You need to explain why you think that's just realism."science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" — Pseudonym
So you're saying that tithing is a moral issue because others say so? It's arbitrary? That doesn't seem to help your argument much.Tithing is a moral issue because it is an example of that class of decisions most people agree to label 'moral'. What I'm interested in as an ethicist, is what properties the members of that class share. It the same as the class 'animal' is that class of object which have a non-walled cell. A zoologist studies the things in this class. We could argue about what 'should' be in and out of each class by means of similarity, and that argument will never be conclusive, but the decision we make in moot cases does not tell us anything about the class, only language. — Pseudonym
Exactly. No one's goals are affected by your choice of color of hat. If it did affect others goals, then it would be a moral issue. That is my point - that organisms have goals. Tables and hats do not.The thing is, despite this ambiguity no-one thinks choosing the colour of my new hat is a moral decision and no-one thinks a table is an animal, so we usually have enough agreement on terms to be going on with. — Pseudonym
Yes, because you were designed that way by natural selection. You are a social animal among other social animals.1. I want to maximise the feeling of well-being I get from living in a mutually supportive society. This is not something I've decided to want, I just find I do. I also find others feel this way too, so any conclusions I draw from my investigation of the best way to achieve this might be useful to others. — Pseudonym
There are plenty of other species that have in-fighting and they have been around longer than humans. Males in many species fight (sometimes to the death) for territory and mates.On examination, I can see how such a feeling could have evolved (mutually supportive communities would out compete those with in-fighting), so I'm happy that this feeling is not something superficially conditioned into me. (I can explain why this matters if necessary). — Pseudonym
Well yes, you use logic to determine the best course of action. This is done for any kind of decision - moral or not. You use reason to make any decision whether it be which ice cream flavor to eat, or who to save when you find more than one person drowning and can only save one. The other person drowning that you are not saving wishes that you would save them. In other words, moral dilemmas arise out of a conflict of interests. There is no scientific theory that tells us which person you should save. There are only theories that explain why you saved one over another (you share more of your genes with the person you saved as they are a family member, or if they are both strangers, you save the one with the least amount of risk to yourself).2. Given that I want what I want, I then have to employ rational thought to the evidence that I have to arrive at a solution. This is where science helps. — Pseudonym
It's really simple. You right away defended the following quote by Putnam: — Caldwell
You right away defended the following quote by Putnam:
"science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective" — Pseudonym
as merely Realism, without providing an argument that the line points to Realism. And that makes it okay to say? Not quite. This is a philosophy thread. You need to explain why you think that's just realism. — Caldwell
You admitted under those conditions that not only you've had experience, but you could articulate it or communicate it. Did you have to wait for science to explain it to you and for you? — Caldwell
So you're saying that tithing is a moral issue because others say so? It's arbitrary? That doesn't seem to help your argument much. — Harry Hindu
Exactly. No one's goals are affected by your choice of color of hat. If it did affect others goals, then it would be a moral issue. That is my point - that organisms have goals. Tables and hats do not. — Harry Hindu
There are plenty of other species that have in-fighting and they have been around longer than humans. Males in many species fight (sometimes to the death) for territory and mates. — Harry Hindu
There is no scientific theory that tells us which person you should save. — Harry Hindu
There are only theories that explain why you saved one over another (you share more of your genes with the person you saved as they are a family member, or if they are both strangers, you save the one with the least amount of risk to yourself). — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.