Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Razgovory]

Colour me suprised you and Marti have the same view of what science is.

I certainly am.  Viking is no dummy, which is why I find his statements so bizarre.  My guess is that he driven on by his hatred of religion and has had counter so many arguments and adjust his own that he's arguing something he no longer believes anymore.  His arguments have some strange ramifications.  For instance the conquest of the New World by the Europeans was supremely moral, as not only was their technology superior their older systems of philosophy were morally superior.

[Viking]

Colour me suprised you and Marti have the same view of what science is.

I certainly am.  Viking is no dummy, which is why I find his statements so bizarre.  My guess is that he driven on by his hatred of religion and has had counter so many arguments and adjust his own that he's arguing something he no longer believes anymore.  His arguments have some strange ramifications.  For instance the conquest of the New World by the Europeans was supremely moral, as not only was their technology superior their older systems of philosophy were morally superior.

Since I hold no such views on the moral supremacy of the europeans I have no problems. You however seem determined to misrepresent what I say rather than trying to understand me.

You are making stuff up about me, that is why you think it's bizarre.

[Razgovory]

You do hate religion.  You've made that very clear.  You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time.  This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior.  Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.

[Razgovory]

I admit I don't know a great deal about science.  In fact, I know so little about science I think Cracked Magazine articles have relevant scientific facts in them.  http://www.cracked.com/article_19442_8-simple-questions-you-wont-believe-science-cant-answer.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=feature_module

[Viking]

You do hate religion.  You've made that very clear.  You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time.  This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior.  Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.

Do you realize there is a difference between Moral Knowledge, Moral Behavior and Moral Justification?

[Oexmelin]

We know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.

I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.

[Razgovory]

You do hate religion.  You've made that very clear.  You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time.  This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior.  Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.

Do you realize there is a difference between Moral Knowledge, Moral Behavior and Moral Justification?

Explain it to me.

[Viking]

We know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.

I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.

I had a hard time understanding what you posted here. I think this is because you are not using sentences. The bit I labeled red I do not understand. I know what all the words mean but I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The bit below that uses sentences, so I think I get that. You are saying that I am posing the tautology that we are progressing towards better morals and ethics because we have arrived at a point where my subjective view is that ethics and morality are better than before. Basically positing progress because we have had progress.

Well, it seems we need to deal with the sociopath's morality then. I don't think it is controversial for me to say that I don't like post-modernism. I think it is pretty honest of me to say that the reason I don't like it is that it is true. All experience is subjective and no true objective truths or values actually exist. This is of course also useless and counterproductive in trying to to know anything or communicate any knowledge. I can't know anything because my senses (and cultural preconceptions etc.) might deceive me, I furthermore cannot communicate any knowledge I might think I have because my understanding of any word or text is limited to my preconceptions and subjective attitudes.

I cannot say that torturing little babies is wrong without appealing to divine sourced objective morality since any natural morality can ultimately be made subjective since the sociopath doesn't mind torturing babies and the masochist doesn't mind being tortured. How can we know what is good or bad in the case where there is no god provide laws dividing right from wrong and we can't make a thing right just by voting to make it right. Basically there is no god so there is no divinely sourced morality and people do not agree so there is no objective natural morality. How can we know anything about morality at all you seem to be asking. How can we judge one set of morals and ethics to be better that some other you might ask.

I think I can answer that question clearly. Yes, morality is subjective and it is empirical. Morality is not objective and rational. You can't use a moral axiom and then logically use that to derive which action is moral and which behavior is ethical. Basically what is moral and ethical are the behaviors which create a society which the consensus opinion participate in. Note, this is not me saying that morality is what the consensus agrees upon. This is me saying morale behavior is the behavior which creates the society the consensus would wish to participate in.

The example I'd like to use is abortion here. If the consensus is that the society we'd like to participate in is the one with no abortions the moral action is not banning abortions, but rather the moral action is the one which creates the society where abortions do not happen. In my mind that is one with good quality sex-ed and access to prophylactics ect.

No issue however ever decides this. I'd like to live in a free society where nobody chooses to have an abortion. If abortion were your only issue then banning it and using chastity belts on women who don't actively want children might achieve your moral goal. In reality this is not the case so morality is also a balancing of priorities and a valuation of what social, ethical or moral cost you are willing to pay for social, ethical and moral goods.

We can rank moral values from bad to good using our knowledge of the success of our chosen means to achieve our chosen ends.

To have any morality of any kind the sociopath and the masochist need to be denied a veto on morality; this is why the consensus of society matters.

For every medieval peasant who prefers serfdom to the welfare state I can find 100 easily, the standard isn't which he would choose but rather which would he wish to be a fully informed member of.

I reject this rationalist view of morality because it is not objective does not rely on axioms, but to quote the bible, Matthew 7:16, "you shall know them by their fruits".

[Viking]

You do hate religion.  You've made that very clear.  You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time.  This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior.  Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.

Do you realize there is a difference between Moral Knowledge, Moral Behavior and Moral Justification?

Explain it to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

wikipedia is a good place to start.

[Razgovory]

So, you don't know either?

[crazy canuck]

Wow just wow Viking.  You do know what Oex does for a living right?

Anyway, I will sit back and await Oex's response which btw I am sure everyone but you will understand.

[CountDeMoney]

[Barrister]

We know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.

I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.

Oex, I fully appreciate that you and I do not share whole lot of common opinions on certain topics, but after reading your posts in this thread I have a complete man-crush on you for the night.

[Valmy]

How exactly could we prove Foucault wrong?  And if we could, could some of his writings be wrong and others not be wrong?  Or must he either be entirely right or not right at all?

Are you really trying to be serious? Sophistry? Proving Foucault wrong on the topic X means we don't have to take his views on X seriously. Please try to be serious.

I am being serious.  You are the one saying idiotic shit like how we can ignore ancient stuff because...it seems every single thing said was proven wrong?  How?  By whom?  When?  And further I will ask again how does one prove Foucault wrong on any topic?

[The Brain]

This thread is almost as great as the big Quebec one.