Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Terrapin Station]

I doubt you have any evidence to justify that claim. But anyway, it's false, because I think slavery is morally wrong universally, without qualification.
This is just wrong. The word has many different uses in different contexts.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. Thanks.

So I said, "No one who would make those two statements . . ." In other words, both of them. Presumably you wouldn't make the second statement, right?

Re "inconsistent," what alternate sense of the term were you using where you feel that inconsistency is an issue?

[Terrapin Station]

The fact that a (large) number of people can feel so strongly about something, in concert with each other, that they can't imagine feeling otherwise, doesn't actually make the feeling something other than a feeling. If some lone, unusual person comes along who happens to feel differently, that doesn't amount to that person getting a fact wrong. They just feel differently.

Do you believe that the scientific method or the belief in its irrefutability originates from a feeling?

Assuming there is something that's clearly, standarly "the scientific method" (I'm rather Feyerabendian in skepticism about that), I'd say that the premises of it originate in feelings at least. And I'd say that belief in "irrefutability" (whatever "irrefutability of the scientific method" would be--it definitely wouldn't be scientific per falsificationism) would be rooted in feelings, too.

Not that that has anything to do with morality, by the way.

[psyreporter]

Well, that is not how it is defined in any dictionary. While it is true that everyone pursuing some purpose will consider that purpose "good" --- else they would not be pursuing it --- what counts as "good" is necessarily subjective and idiosyncratic.

"Good" as an opinion may be different from "good" as a result. The pursuit of a purpose requires foreknowledge and as can be seen in Aristotle's consideration that philosophical contemplation (the discovery of "good") is the highest virtue, it is the "good" that is pursued while the result will follow.

The first sentence in the Nicomachean Ethics reads, "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." That statement is perfectly correct. Thereafter Aristotle proceeds to declare specific things to be "good." But they will only be "good" if someone desires them and invests some time, effort, other resources to acquire them. And those objects of pursuit will vary from person to person.

There is no "the good." There are only goods, all relative to the plethora of interests and desires of particular valuers.

Is "life" as a concept given by Nature "good"? It cannot be evaluated as it cannot be compared. As such, there may be a "good" that reaches beyond foreknowledge and desires. Maybe it can be found in the valuing by the valuer. The philosophical contemplation or discovery of "good".

Results follow "good". Corruption follows results.

[psyreporter]

Assuming there is something that's clearly, standarly "the scientific method" (I'm rather Feyerabendian in skepticism about that), I'd say that the premises of it originate in feelings at least. And I'd say that belief in "irrefutability" (whatever "irrefutability of the scientific method" would be--it definitely wouldn't be scientific per falsificationism) would be rooted in feelings, too.

Not that that has anything to do with morality, by the way.

The concept objectivity originates from the scientific method. It is therefore relevant for the question whether morality can be objective.

Considering that the concept objectivity is based on a philosophy, it may be possible to use the underlying character of that philosophy to make the concept objectivity applicable to moral principles without the need to fulfill the requirements posed by the scientific method.

It appears that the character of the scientific method which provides the foundation for the concept objectivity is to achieve a state of irrefutability. It may be possible to achieve a similar state of irrefutability for moral principles without the need to fulfill the requirements posed by the scientific method.

[Terrapin Station]

Assuming there is something that's clearly, standarly "the scientific method" (I'm rather Feyerabendian in skepticism about that), I'd say that the premises of it originate in feelings at least. And I'd say that belief in "irrefutability" (whatever "irrefutability of the scientific method" would be--it definitely wouldn't be scientific per falsificationism) would be rooted in feelings, too.

Not that that has anything to do with morality, by the way.

The concept objectivity originates from the scientific method. It is therefore relevant for the question whether morality can be objective.

Considering that the concept objectivity is based on a philosophy, it may be possible to use the underlying character of that philosophy to make the concept objectivity applicable to moral principles without the need to fulfill the requirements posed by the scientific method.

It appears that the character of the scientific method which provides the foundation for the concept objectivity is to achieve a state of irrefutability. It may be possible to achieve a similar state of irrefutability for moral principles without the need to fulfill the requirements posed by the scientific method.

For one, from where are you getting the idea that anything in the sciences is irrefutable, or that that would be a goal of the sciences? Falsifiability is rather considered one of the hallmarks of the sciences--the notion that unless a claim is at least potentially revisable, it's not a scientific claim.

The only way to get to something being factually correct re morality is for it to be a feature of the mind-independent world, whatever term we'd use for that. But no moral stances are a feature of the mind-independent world.

[psyreporter]

You are correct that irrefutability cannot be seen as the goal of the scientific method. Rather, it is testability and thereby falsifiability.

Karl Popper (scientific philosopher) stated the following:

...

3) Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

https://fs.blog/2016/01/karl-popper-on- ... doscience/

While irrefutability of a theory is a vice in the scientific method, when looking at the underlying character of what it is that the scientific method intends to effectuate, it is the unmasking an irrefutable truth. The scientific method does not allow irrefutability in theories, as its method demands that theories are testable, but that is merely it. The result of the method is still to be considered irrefutable by means of falsifiability.

As such, for morality, it may be possible to use a different philosophical method to reach an irrefutable result that can be considered to match the qualities of objectivity.

[Peter Holmes]

As such, for morality, it may be possible to use a different philosophical method to reach an irrefutable result that can be considered to match the qualities of objectivity.

This would be possible only if what moral assertions are about are features or reality, in the way that scientific and other factual assertions are about features of reality. But are moral rightness and wrongness independent features of reality.

The task for moral realists and objectivists is to demonstrate the existence of moral features of reality - real things whose existence is independent of opinion. And, to my knowledge, they've never met their burden of proof. Until they do, talk of moral objectivity is incoherent.

[psyreporter]

The concept "future" may be an example feature or reality that could be used as an objective foundation for a moral principle.

"Future" as a concept isn't falsifiable using the scientific method, yet it cannot be denied. Merely a potentially flawed belief in the scientific method (a belief in uniformitarianism, a dogma) prevents the acceptance of an alternative philosophical method to determine the irrefutability of the claim that "future" as a concept is a truth or that it should be considered a factor, for example, to determine objective morality.

Thinking about the future in a scientific manner is often characterised by an illusion of knowledge, leading to precarious one-sidedness and false conclusions. The reasons for this are misinterpretations of core scientific concepts as well as vested interests in knowledge creation and scientific advice; these misinterpretations and interfering interests can prevail because there is no coherent set of rules on what a scientific enquiry into the future could look like.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 013-0031-4

Like with concepts such as "consciousness", there are features of reality that, while apparently they cannot be denied to be a truth, cannot be falsified by the scientific method. And instead of considering that there may be something wrong with the scientific method, or that some features of reality require a different method to unmask their irrefutable truth, it appears that the status quo is set to stubbornly hold on to the belief that the scientific method should be the guiding principle for human progress, thus rather to make a choice to consider that a concept such as "life", "future" or "consciousness" is merely an illusion.

I believe that it is a major problem. For example, the synthetic biology revolution receives multi-trillion USD of investments per year from Big Pharma like companies while the practice to "redesign life" is based on the idea (a belief) that "life" as a factor does not need to be considered (other than that on individual or corporate level).

When "life" as a concept is factored out, one could just as well consider "life" meaningless or an effect of pure randomness. It logically results in a belief that evolution is driven by random chance.

A belief that evolution is driven by random chance results in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random will count as "good". Big Pharma use that flawed thinking to see an opportunity for growth and are on their way to corrupt nature to obtain short term profit (results) in which no concept of "good" has been established or valued beforehand.

Respect for nature/life is completely abolished because of a potentially flawed belief that humans should blindly follow the result of the scientific method.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is important to acknowledge that incomparable concepts such as "life" cannot be factored out based on a belief that humans should blindly follow the scientific method.

Objective morality may be possible, by establishing the irrefutability of incomparable concepts.

As further evidence that a belief in the scientific method may be flawed, is the following foresight on the evolution of science by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter 6 - We Scholars).

The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime - which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, "Freedom from all masters!" and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose "hand-maid" it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the "master" - what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.

According to Nietzsche, when practicing science independently (blindly following the result of the scientific method), scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

At question thereby is: is it justified to factor our uncomparable concepts such as "life" and what could be the result for morality when such concepts are not factored out? In my opinion: it will result in the requirement of philosophical contemplation. Logically, it will result in a basis for respect to be required for plants and animals while humans learn that they cannot stand above life as being life.

[Terrapin Station]

The concept "future" may be an example feature or reality that could be used as an objective foundation for a moral principle.

"Future" is simply "things that will happen that haven't happened yet." We can easily falsify that for something. "This basketball has a future that will blah blah blah." Well, then we explode the basketball and it no longer exists as something that can have things happen to/with it.

And we in practice falsify claims about consciousness all the time. Neuroscientists, psychologists, psychiatrists and cognitive scientists in general do this.

[psyreporter]

"future" as a concept is not falsifiable, merely the probability that future events will take place. It is the reason why some devotees to the scientific method believe in determinism.

"consciousness" is a "problem" for science. While in recent years it is increasingly recognized by the status quo that the scientific method may be incapable to provide an answer while consciousness is increasingly not factored out as something that is an illusion, in the previous decades that may have been very different.

There is growing suspicion that conventional scientific methods will never be able answer these questions.

(2019) http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

As an example, psychiatry is a medical specialism that is based on the idea that consciousness (human emotions, behaviour and thoughts) arises out of accidental chemistry in the brains. Without that core idea the profession psychiatry does not have a justification to exist. For diseases in the brains there are neurologists (doctors). For problems with the mind there are psychotherapists (applied psychology).

Psychiatry is an example of a potentially flawed practice that is based on the conviction that blindly following the result of the scientific method will provide an answer. Despite 70 years of trying and the most funding from Big Pharma, they have literally achieved 0 results (according to mainstream professors). Today, psychiatry is not able to provide evidence for the physiology of any presumed mental disease. The biological model is heavily under fire.

Even mainstream medical authorities have begun to question the creeping medicalization of normal life and criticize the poor reliability, validity, utility and humanity of conventional psychiatric diagnosis.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mi ... alth-care/

To medicalize the human mind it requires the concept of a disease. How could a disease (as a core cause) determine how people feel, think or behave? While a disease can be an indirect influence, the deterministic character of the idea that a disease controls how someone feels, thinks or behaves is contentious. Therefor, the core idea on which psychiatry is based may be invalid.

The recent developments regarding the scientific method may be important for morality. When there is room for alternative philosophical methods, it may be possible to create a method that enables morality to be objective.

[Terrapin Station]

"future" as a concept is not falsifiable

What would it even mean to "falsify a concept"? Propositions are the sorts of things that can be true or false. Not concepts.

"consciousness" is a "problem" for science.

Not really, though. It's a problem for people who have a problem with the notion that consciousness isn't just a way that brains work. Often those issues are rooted in folks' religious beliefs, or folks who have issues accepting that loved ones who died are not still around in some sense, or folks who have issues accepting that at some point they'll just cease to exist, etc. (because if consciousness if just a way that brains work, then it doesn't make much sense to say that a person continues to exist after death).

[psyreporter]

What would it even mean to "falsify a concept"? Propositions are the sorts of things that can be true or false. Not concepts.

Considering your previous statement that a belief in the irrefutability of the result of the scientific method originates from a feeling. Wouldn't that imply that what is falsified could at most be classified as a concept?

"consciousness" is a "problem" for science.

Not really, though. It's a problem for people who have a problem with the notion that consciousness isn't just a way that brains work. Often those issues are rooted in folks' religious beliefs, or folks who have issues accepting that loved ones who died are not still around in some sense, or folks who have issues accepting that at some point they'll just cease to exist, etc. (because if consciousness if just a way that brains work, then it doesn't make much sense to say that a person continues to exist after death).

To falsify a concept, is the ability, as demanded by the scientific method, that a theory is testable. It requires that an discrepancy of what is stated can be described for it to be testable.

For some features of reality there is no discrepancy. A distinguishing aspect of those features is incomparability per se. When something cannot be compared, it cannot be tested using the scientific method. This is the case with "the future", "infinity", "life", "consciousness". The "concepts" cannot be denied, but the rules of the scientific method cannot provide a test that can prove that the concepts are real.

For morality this may provide a potential for objectivity.

[Terrapin Station]

Considering your previous statement that a belief in the irrefutability of the result of the scientific method originates from a feeling. Wouldn't that imply that what is falsified could at most be classified as a concept?

??? I'm seriously bewildered at how you're making connections there.

Concepts aren't true or false. Propositions are what can be true or false. Propositions employ concepts, but they're not the same thing as concepts.

Concepts are abstractions--mental tools for thinking of a number of particulars as the "same type." So you have a concept of "music" for example that allows you to classify different sets of sounds as "music." That can't be true or false. It's just a tool for dealing with the world.

Propositions are claims that something is or is not the case. Propositions can be true or false (on one view by "matching" or failing to match what is it isn't the case).

For some features of reality there is no discrepancy. A distinguishing aspect of those features is incomparability per se. When something cannot be compared, it cannot be tested using the scientific method. This is the case with "the future", "infinity", "life", "consciousness".

"the future", "infinity", "life", "consciousness" aren't claims about anything, so they can't be true or false. "There is something that is infinite" would be a claim , but we need to state it that way. Just the word "infinity" doesn't make any sort of claim.

The "concepts" cannot be denied, but the rules of the scientific method cannot provide a test that can prove that the concepts are real.

Concepts aren't real period. They're a mental tool.

[Terrapin Station]

If you just walk up to someone and say "infinity" or "the future" or "life" or "train" or whatever, they're going to say "What about it?"

You need to say something about those things for us to be able to say whether you're saying something true or false.

[psyreporter]

??? I'm seriously bewildered at how you're making connections there.

Concepts aren't true or false. Propositions are what can be true or false. Propositions employ concepts, but they're not the same thing as concepts.

Concepts are abstractions--mental tools for thinking of a number of particulars as the "same type." So you have a concept of "music" for example that allows you to classify different sets of sounds as "music." That can't be true or false. It's just a tool for dealing with the world.

Propositions are claims that something is or is not the case. Propositions can be true or false (on one view by "matching" or failing to match what is it isn't the case).

I do not agree. It is merely a belief that there can be something other than a concept (a mentally comprehensible construct). For example, a belief that the laws of physics remain the same over time, while there is mounting evidence that the laws of physics may change over time and even across the Universe.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -universe/

A concept can be re-evaluated. A proposition can be a claim but in time it is merely a concept.

Once, the laws of physics were a proposition. Today, they were a concept. Humility may be applicable in the face of what cannot be known beforehand.

"the future", "infinity", "life", "consciousness" aren't claims about anything, so they can't be true or false. "There is something that is infinite" would be a claim , but we need to state it that way. Just the word "infinity" doesn't make any sort of claim.

Well, just try to frame the concepts. For example, "life" is? vs "a train" is? It is the apparent inability to claim anything about the mentioned concepts that results in a potential disregard of its undeniability.

Psychiatry is a potential example of what could go wrong. It may have originated from a stubborn attempt to hold on to a belief in the scientific method (a dogma).

Concepts aren't real period. They're a mental tool.

How does something that originates from a feeling differ from a mental tool or concept?