Science has no value.

Using science, we can not even prove it exists, and if it does not exist, it has value equal (maybe al little less) to a castrated IPU. I say a little less because castrated IPUs are rare indeed.

But I can show a high probability that science exists, so let us proceed on the unproven belief that science exists.

If it does exist, it must exist as it has been described, particularly by those involved in it (if there is an “it”), and by those who have attempted to observe it from the outside.

I mean “must exist” in the sense that if this is not true, than anything is possible, and I do not mean to discuss anything, rather something. Those who believe that science might exist other than the believers themselves proclaim, will have to argue with the believers. I will only warn that their faith is strong.

The real value that is totaling lacking in this questionable endeavor of science, is a defined set of morals or ethics. Among human beings, ethics and morals are referred to as values, because (no surprise here), they have value. Value to human life.

Of course science, as it is proposed, has internal values.
For example it is considered unfair to steal the intellectual content of a colleague.
But science has no expectations of how to deal with outsiders.

Cadavers have a certain usefulness to science, and science had no guidelines as to how these cadavers are to be obtained. One man’s child is another man’s cadaver.

It is fortunate that those outside of this belief system of science, impose their values on it.
It is fortunate that most scientists accept these imposed moral and ethical values that are absent from science itself.

If we can imagine a science left to its own devices, we can imagine reasons to make it illegal.
After all, a valueless endeavor, is, without value.

Science has no value.

science has a lot of value because without it we wouldn't even have computers.

Using science, we can not even prove it exists,

sure you can: i see science, therefore it exists.

But science has no expectations of how to deal with outsiders.

Sure it does. All of the time those scientists come up with allot of stuff that can't be seen or proven , like atoms. They can tell the public anything and the people wouldn't know much about whatever they said. Baffel others with BS is what they can do. ;):p

Sure it does. All of the time those scientists come up with allot of stuff that can't be seen or proven , like atoms. They can tell the public anything and the people wouldn't know much about whatever they said. Baffel others with BS is what they can do. ;):p

Oh dear, who baffled you into believing I could read your messaage and that your PC was capable of transmitting it. You are not going to die of smallpox because you cannot see what causes it. More bafflement. The list is virtually endless.

I suggest you are talking about religion ,with an absentee god, angels and all sorts of other entities which cannot be seen. As Mark Twain rightly said, when man has solved a problem, god slips in by the backdoor to take the credit.

Your posts have no value.

Your posts have no value.

Obviously not to you. Shall I quote scripture ? How about

"nd thine eyes shall deceive thee because thou comrehendest not the word of the Most Holy."

Eugenics 1.13

Or how about

"And verily all shall be humbled before the throne of Zarlok because he speaketh the truth which none will hear."


Paul to the Etruscans

I have been told, by one who more of these things than I do, : BeHereNow, you seem to think that Science deals with "proof". It doesn't. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755043&postcount=7)


And by another: Scientific theories cannot be proven true (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755043&postcount=7).. . . we accept them as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is the language of the law, not the language of science. . . .We casually refer to them as "truth" when speaking to laymen, but that is just dumbing down the language for laymen.

And by another:
Yes - there is no "proof" - only a very high probability. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1756882&postcount=17)

beherenow

No shit.

Now ask something a little better.

beherenow

No shit.

Now ask something a little better.

I don't know about you but I'd sooner be somewhere else,so I'm off. CU

THanks man!

Science not only has no value, science destroys values. According to the extreme fundamentalists of the movement, values themselves have no value if they are based on anything other than Science;

From a philosophy of reality and reason (http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.06.html)

The underlying conceit of those who value only those ethical principles derived through a belief in the efficacy of reason is this: that all facts are material, and all facts are knowable and will be known. Therefore there is no reason (oxymoron intended) to rely on anything other than reason to make ethical judgements.

After all, if you can prove that you possess more facts than I do, then reason dictates that your judgement should prevail. Your anthropologist should be able to walk into my sacred burial ground and study the bones of my ancesters unfettered by any ethics based on what is considered to be pixies and fairy dust. How is that any different, in the end, then what any zealot does?

Science has no value.
...


Incorrect.
Science provides us with nothing but value:

science has a lot of value because without it we wouldn't even have computers.
...


Which is exactly the point. Without science not only could you not have made your post, more than likely you also would not have fashioned such an inept line of thought.
Your mistake is twofold: Firstly, you make the illicit assumption that there is some sort of objective 'Truth' that it is the goal of science to reveal. Secondly, you make the illicit assumption that the methodology of the scientific method requires "proof".

Science has no value.

How is life in a cave, anyway? Does lightning still frighten you?

Science not only has no value, science destroys values. According to the extreme fundamentalists of the movement, values themselves have no value if they are based on anything other than Science;

From a philosophy of reality and reason (http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.06.html)

The underlying conceit of those who value only those ethical principles derived through a belief in the efficacy of reason is this: that all facts are material, and all facts are knowable and will be known. Therefore there is no reason (oxymoron intended) to rely on anything other than reason to make ethical judgements.

After all, if you can prove that you possess more facts than I do, then reason dictates that your judgement should prevail. Your anthropologist should be able to walk into my sacred burial ground and study the bones of my ancesters unfettered by any ethics based on what is considered to be pixies and fairy dust. How is that any different, in the end, then what any zealot does?


What have you got against reason ? Are you into crystals, tarot or some other superstitious nonsense ? Reason is all that sets us apart from the other animals. Why abandon it ? What are you afraid of ?

Making ethical judgement is not a question of who has the most facts; it's a matter of interpretation. All the facts in the world cannot justify child abuse, desecrating cemeteries and other such behaviour. Can I suggest that you think about what you read rather than passively accept it, as you appear to have done. What you quoted is an appeal to the emotions, nothing more.

I think he is saying that reason without ethics is also fascism.

who said ethics had to come from a fair tale and a bunch of old (mostly) men who died 2000 years or more ago?

I would rather relie on prinicple based ethics to make MY decisions

Thanks for responding.

What have you got against reason ?

I have nothing against reason per se. I do have a problem with what appears to be a worship of reason above all other mental faculties.... or the use of reason to the exclusion of mature, balanced emotion (and, on occassion, intuition). I use reason all the time (not as often or as well as I could) but I also try to accept how I (or another) feel about something without having to justify the feeling rationally.

Are you into crystals, tarot or some other superstitious nonsense ?

Crystals - no.
Tarot - no.
some other superstitious nonsense - IYHO - probably. :)

Making ethical judgement is not a question of who has the most facts; it's a matter of interpretation. All the facts in the world cannot justify child abuse, desecrating cemeteries and other such behaviour.

An ethical judgement as 'a matter of interpretation'? Interpretation of what? Of facts? I would like to understand what you mean.

Maybe facts can't justify desecrating cemetaries, but scientists did file a lawsuit to try to prevent kennewick man (http://www.saa.org/repatriation/kennewickFAQs.html) from being repatriated. I know the facts in this case are complicated, but I think it serves as a somewhat poor example that scientists are capable of bending other ethical considerations to the pursuit of knowledge.

Can I suggest that you think about what you read rather than passively accept it, as you appear to have done. What you quoted is an appeal to the emotions, nothing more.

I'm glad you chose to characterize it as such. I pulled that quote as an example of a class of argument that I'm on about. I generally don't passively accept anything (at least not consciously, or unless I'm really tired.) I just generally feel that the subjective get's short shrift. I'm not anti-science, but I do think that BeHereNow has a point about science not having any intrinsic or derivable ethics, and I have my doubts as to how any ethical system can derive solely through the use of reason.

who said ethics had to come from a fair tale and a bunch of old (mostly) men who died 2000 years or more ago?

I would rather relie on prinicple based ethics to make MY decisions

I guess I'm asking that IF my ethics were based on superstitious beliefs in the spirit world, would someone like you (with principle-based ethics-whatever that means) tend to dismiss them?

I think he is saying that reason without ethics is also fascism.

Yeah - I tend to bloviate... I'm working on that.

I guess I'm asking that IF my ethics were based on superstitious beliefs in the spirit world, would someone like you (with principle-based ethics-whatever that means) tend to dismiss them?

just for refference, ethics is something i have studied in a formal sence as part of my degree

Now on to the post

Would I automatically dismiss someone who takes there ethics from a religion?
no probably not, "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not commit adultery" are good philosophes in and of themselves because they follow the principles I follow. ie Autonomie, Non-malfecance, benificance and Justice (in the sence of social justice not legal justice)

"Love one another as i have loved you" or "treat one another as you would want to be treated" are brillant example of all 4 principles so it wouldnt even cross my mind to contritict them

HOWEVER when something comes along that DOES breach my principles and is ONLY based on some book rather than guiding living principles then i will fight against it

I dont generally do this in a formal sence (ie the principle of justice says .... which means we should do....) i tend to do it in a more practical sence (see the long dead CP threads i have been involved in, sorry cant give links)

For instance the issue of homosexuality

My principles of justice says that "everyone should be treated equally"
Non Malfecance says to "DO NO HARM"
Benificence "to benifit the lives you touch"
Authonimy "everyone has the right to make there own choices in life"

So when a christan (or anyother religion) comes along and says homosexuality should be banned because its a sin well that doesnt sit right and is something i should campaine against. When a goverment says that homosexual realtionships dont have the same rights as hedrosexual ones again it dosnt sit right because we are all equal and all have the same rights to make our own choices and be surported in those without any descrimination.

Principle based ethics isnt a list of do's and don't's, its a method of working out what a corect ethical direction is for a set circumstance unlike religion which IS a list of do this, dont do that.

I hope this has helped:p

I think he is saying that reason without ethics is also fascism.

Your interpretation may be right but he appearsto be treating them as mutually exclusive. Some people are ethical . othes are not. That's all there is to it/

Thanks for responding.



I have nothing against reason per se. I do have a problem with what appears to be a worship of reason above all other mental faculties.... or the use of reason to the exclusion of mature, balanced emotion (and, on occassion, intuition). I use reason all the time (not as often or as well as I could) but I also try to accept how I (or another) feel about something without having to justify the feeling rationally.



Crystals - no.
Tarot - no.
some other superstitious nonsense - IYHO - probably. :)



An ethical judgement as 'a matter of interpretation'? Interpretation of what? Of facts? I would like to understand what you mean.

Maybe facts can't justify desecrating cemetaries, but scientists did file a lawsuit to try to prevent kennewick man (http://www.saa.org/repatriation/kennewickFAQs.html) from being repatriated. I know the facts in this case are complicated, but I think it serves as a somewhat poor example that scientists are capable of bending other ethical considerations to the pursuit of knowledge.



I'm glad you chose to characterize it as such. I pulled that quote as an example of a class of argument that I'm on about. I generally don't passively accept anything (at least not consciously, or unless I'm really tired.) I just generally feel that the subjective get's short shrift. I'm not anti-science, but I do think that BeHereNow has a point about science not having any intrinsic or derivable ethics, and I have my doubts as to how any ethical system can derive solely through the use of reason.

All you are saying is that some people are ethical, others are not. So why pick on scientists ?

glaucon Incorrect.
Science provides us with nothing but value:
“ Originally Posted by Yorda
science has a lot of value because without it we wouldn't even have computers.
... ”
Which is exactly the point. Without science not only could you not have made your post, more than likely you also would not have fashioned such an inept line of thought.You are changing the meaning of the word value from my OP.
I have a friend who agrees science has much value (in your mistaken meaning). He says a nuclear device with a handy detonation system can bring big bucks in some parts of the world. He reminds me that without science these huge profits would not be possible. I remind him that science has nothing to say about how such things are used.

glaucon Your mistake is twofold: Firstly, you make the illicit assumption that there is some sort of objective 'Truth' that it is the goal of science to reveal.Quite the opposite.
I point out that science believes there is no objective truth concerning morality or values.
I will say science seems to seek some objective truth, which it believes it can never find.
Whether or not there is an objective truth, is not the business of science. Science has not earned the right to proclaim there is no objective truth.
When the scientists concern themselves with science, there is no problem.
When scientists concern themselves with morality and values, they lack the proper tools to make any decisions.

. Secondly, you make the illicit assumption that the methodology of the scientific method requires "proof".You must have missed the links I posted (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1771503&postcount=7)that point out that science can provide no proof.

I do not believe it requires what it cannot provide.

I guess because science has power, and power can be abused. Scientists, especially the materialist types who consider religious people to be mentally defective are the scariest. I'll stick with my example:

If an ethic can be derived rationally from the activity of science, it would start with the value of knowledge. Having knowledge is better than not having knowledge. Even I agree with that. But knowledge at what price? The religous practices of Islam, while emenable to mathmatics and philosophy, were seen by the west to hamstring the study of medicine for centuries. The west had no such strictures, and were able to make progress on that front.

There now is a group of people whose cultural and spiritual practices hold respect for the remains of the dead, and feel that digging up the bones of their ancesters for study is wrong. A group of ethical (not unethical) scientists differ with that opinion. Instead of respecting the wishes of the group impacted (Assguard's Non-malfecence clause), they file suit to retain the right to study the remains. That's their right. But now - the scientific community, in the form of the Society for American Archeology weighs in with an Amicus brief:

Having played a pivotal role in writing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), SAA felt that it had information relevant to the case that would assist the court in reaching a fair decision.
While claiming not to take sides, they felt that earlier rulings "ignored the fact that cultural affiliation must be established by "a preponderance of the evidence." We are now exactly where I claimed we were - a group having more facts is attempting to use those facts to override the the ethical claims of another group with less facts. Note here that I grant all parties are acting ethically.

Myles - you said:
All the facts in the world cannot justify child abuse, desecrating cemeteries and other such behaviour.

My point: In the conflict of ethics, scientists will tend to argue with fact, and dismiss ethics derived from non-factual sources.

When scientists concern themselves with morality and values, they lack the proper tools to make any decisions.
Knowledge forms the frame of of the human potential. It's implications and ultimate course of history are however detemined by the value men gives these discoveries.

A example the chinese invented the gunpowder. However the value they have it differt greatly of those of the westerns.
Witch leads to the fact that how more of the science you exept and the higher you raise it's value the more powerful you become and if you don't exept it someone else will and be better of.

Assguard - thanks. I understand what you mean by principle based ethics - back in the day we called it 'situational ethics'.

PS - You might appreciate this, ASSGUARD - My hometown is BUMPASS! :p

Yeah, let's make science illegal and depend on faith, so that everyone dies from diseases.

If it does exist, it must exist as it has been described, particularly by those involved in it (if there is an “it”), and by those who have attempted to observe it from the outside.
Science is not an 'it', it's not a thing. It's a process, the idea that the closest form of objective truth is reached through experimentation and direct observation. The important point being truth, in science, is not 100% objective, but it's absolutely not subjective either.
Cadavers have a certain usefulness to science, and science had no guidelines as to how these cadavers are to be obtained. One man’s child is another man’s cadaver.
I see what you're trying to say, but that's a poor example. You have to sign your consent granting the use of your body, or parts of it, for scientific research. Whether this rule is put in place by science or by government is debatable, I'd say it's some of both (mainly Medical Ethics Boards).
If we can imagine a science left to its own devices, we can imagine reasons to make it illegal.
After all, a valueless endeavor, is, without value.
But science isn't left to its own devices, and even without religious morals we'd have morals imposed by the laws of our society. In a world without morals, where science truely is left to its own devices, we couldn't imagine reasons to make science illegal, because all our laws are a result of morals which we've agreed upon. So your whole arguement is irrelevent.

Science has no value.

Only if you think that electricity, vaccinations, anti-biotics, the ability to forcast the weather, telephones, and computers have no value. Those are all products of science, in case you weren't paying attention.

You are changing the meaning of the word value from my OP.
I have a friend who agrees science has much value (in your mistaken meaning). He says a nuclear device with a handy detonation system can bring big bucks in some parts of the world. He reminds me that without science these huge profits would not be possible. I remind him that science has nothing to say about how such things are used.
...
Quite the opposite.
I point out that science believes there is no objective truth concerning morality or values.
I will say science seems to seek some objective truth, which it believes it can never find.
Whether or not there is an objective truth, is not the business of science. Science has not earned the right to proclaim there is no objective truth.
When the scientists concern themselves with science, there is no problem.
When scientists concern themselves with morality and values, they lack the proper tools to make any decisions.

It sounds to me like you meant to say that science has no inherent ethics. In which case I would agree with you.

I point out that science believes there is no objective truth concerning morality or values.
I will say science seems to seek some objective truth, which it believes it can never find.
Whether or not there is an objective truth, is not the business of science. Science has not earned the right to proclaim there is no objective truth.
When the scientists concern themselves with science, there is no problem.
When scientists concern themselves with morality and values, they lack the proper tools to make any decisions.

I see where your flaw is here, you don't know what science entails. It's simply a method for understanding how things work.

It's little wonder your responses are so ridiculous.

Q I see where your flaw is here, you don't know what science entails. It's simply a method for understanding how things work.Here’s the difference between what you say, and what I say.
I say your statement hides the truth.
If it were as simple as your statement, we would have no disagreement.
The problem is some individuals act as though It's simply a method for understanding how everything works.

What I often see is the attitude of: ‘When science validates it, I’ll believe it. Otherwise, it is made up stuff with no substance.’
Now if you want to take a stand against that type of attitude, we have no disagreement.

Science is not moral~neutral, as it is sometimes presented, it is amoral.
Those in science who find morality, find it outside of science. Science cannot validate their morality, so some individuals want to say it has no substance.

A purely scientific world view is amoral.
Most individuals would say actions have morality, or at least some actions. Eating or sleeping will not normally have moral meaning. On a daily basis our actions require some level of morality. There will be morality of one kind or another. When we are faced with moral decisions, which is inevitable, science gives no answers.

~ ~ ~ ~

Nasor It sounds to me like you meant to say that science has no inherent ethics. In which case I would agree with you.It has no inherent ethics, because it is not capable of establishing any. It can only borrow from other disciplines.
The process of science offers no ethics.
Those individual we might call scientists, may have their own ethics, which they have derived from another disciplines. If they try to use science to justify their beliefs, they will fail.

There will not be convincing scientific evidence they have chosen the best or proper moral code, no matter what code they chose.

BeHereNow, do you believe that science can have value ?

The process of science offers no ethics.

As I stated above, your flaw is not understanding what science entails, hence your claims are not valid. A process cannot have ethics.

Those individual we might call scientists, may have their own ethics, which they have derived from another disciplines. If they try to use science to justify their beliefs, they will fail.

Scientists are people, hence people can have ethics or not. Scientists use science as a method of understanding how things work.

Again, your points are moot.

What about the science of medicine?

That's based on essentially ethical and moral principles.
Or you could say the practice is ethical. In order to treat a 'patient' ensure that no treatment causes further harm, or more risk to their "well-being" than they face at the outset of any treatment.

In other words don't experiment with the lives of sick people, rather try to treat the disease or illness or injury "ethically". Place the patient's survival above any "scientific" result.

If it were unethical as a science, the lives of people getting treatment would be irrelevant - the aim would be to control disease, so the "best treatment", scientifically, would be execution, followed by incineration.

What about the science of medicine?

That's based on essentially ethical and moral principles.
Or you could say the practice is ethical. In order to treat a 'patient' ensure that no treatment causes further harm, or more risk to their "well-being" than they face at the outset of any treatment.

In other words don't experiment with the lives of sick people, rather try to treat the disease or illness or injury "ethically". Place the patient's survival above any "scientific" result.

If it were unethical as a science, the lives of people getting treatment would be irrelevant - the aim would be to control disease, so the "best treatment", scientifically, would be execution, followed by incineration.I took a class called "Medical Ethics". Do you thing such a class is offered in the science department, or the medical department? If you can show it to me, I will be a believer.
Medial Ethics is derivied from philosophy, and if a budding young doctor is to be trained in medical ethics, it is a philosophy professor that will do it.

As I have said, Science (the Sciences), is obligated to look to other diciplines for it's moral and ethical guidelines.

Science has at least one value. It disvalues the subjective.

sowhatifit'sdark Science has at least one value. It disvalues the subjective.And would you say it offers objectivity in exchange.
And how does it do this?

You are changing the meaning of the word value from my OP.

Not at all; it was you who neglected to indicate that you were making use of the word "value" in an alternate manner (this being the Philosophy Thread, not Ethics..).



...
I remind him that science has nothing to say about how such things are used.



And so it should not.


Quite the opposite.
I point out that science believes there is no objective truth concerning morality or values.

Which is irrelevant (in absence of your alternate interpretation of the word "value").


I will say science seems to seek some objective truth, which it believes it can never find.

Incorrect.


Whether or not there is an objective truth, is not the business of science.

Correct.


Science has not earned the right to proclaim there is no objective truth.

Irrelevant; it has nothing to do with 'right' (whatever that may be..).


When the scientists concern themselves with science, there is no problem.
When scientists concern themselves with morality and values, they lack the proper tools to make any decisions.

I concur.



You must have missed the links I posted (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1771503&postcount=7)that point out that science can provide no proof.

I remember them, but don't see the relevance.
As long as you refrain from requiring science to prove anything, I have no problem with this.

And would you say it offers objectivity in exchange.
And how does it do this?

I was not saying it was good or bad. I was pointing out an axiomatic value judgement. I think it can lead to certain kinds of information and cuts off others. I do not see an either or situation.

glauson Not at all; it was you who neglected to indicate that you were making use of the word "value" in an alternate manner (this being the Philosophy Thread, not Ethics..).I would think it is clear from my OP what type of value I say science is lacking. I don’t see how I could make it any more clear.
I certainly never indicated science lacked economical, marketability.
Sorry it went over your head.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sowhatifit'sdark I was not saying it was good or bad. I was pointing out an axiomatic value judgement. I think it can lead to certain kinds of information and cuts off others. I do not see an either or situation.Thanks for the clarification.
Sorry for the defensivness.

I would think it is clear from my OP what type of value I say science is lacking. I don’t see how I could make it any more clear.
I certainly never indicated science lacked economical, marketability.
Sorry it went over your head.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


It was unclear.
You could make it more clear by starting the thread in its proper place.

lol

It wasn't over my head, I was pointing out that if it's the case you wish to discuss the problem within an ethical context, then you need to do that therein.

As I have said, Science (the Sciences), is obligated to look to other diciplines for it's moral and ethical guidelines.

And like we keep telling you, you don't know what you're talking about.

P'raps the implication is that science and technology should be more "medicinal" in practice, for us as a whole, instead of all the pollution and waste drama.
But how much is medicine "outside" of it? It bridges humanities, anthropology and all that, with the "hard' sciences.

"After all, a valueless endeavor, is, without value."

No. Your play on words doesn't really work. Because a tool or "method" in this case has no intrinsic value, or that it doesn't itself require moral or ethical whatever, doesn't necessarily have bearing on its use or utility.

Does a chainsaw have value? A gun? What about a sandwich? Sandwiches don't care that they sacrifice themselves to fill your stomach. What a calamity.

Are you making the generalization that "scientists are immoral and unethical"? You seem to be saying "scientists are immoral and unethical because they use methods that are immoral and unethical". Isn't that like saying "lumberjacks should give up their chainsaws"? I guess it's more like saying mathematicians shouldn't use L'Hopital's rule because it doesn't have morals or ethics.

Seems kind of silly really.

Certainly you could argue about specific acts, but on the merit of the choices made by the people involved - not the choice of weapon. *shrug*

Science has at least one value. It disvalues the subjective.

Untrue!

Hehe, well sort of true.

Honestly it's because no one has figured out how to properly account for it.

Just wait though.

Quantum computers are coming, and they will change everything if we can figure out how to program them I mean. Lol. Seriously though, I really, REALLY think this is the main reason subjecvity is mainly ignored. It's because it turns linear problems in to non-linear problems, and non-linear math is riddled with problems to which there is currently no solution. I'm pretty sure it'll take something on the order of quantum computers to make tackling those type of problems realistic at all.

But in spirit, I WHOLLY agree.

Yeah, let's make science illegal and depend on faith, so that everyone dies from diseases.

Ha! Even scientists depend on faith.

You think that's AIR you're breathing?

Well, okay it probably is but air is a really loose term if you nitpick it. Really.

glaucon It was unclear.
You could make it more clear by starting the thread in its proper place.The only thing unclear, is whether or not you even read the OP before responding.
As for starting a thread in the proper location, I started a thread in this section about the meaning of proof, and was told this is not the proper place, basically because this is a science forum, no other views allowed.
The proper section seems to have little meaning to the locals, so when in Rome. . .

My apologies. I’ll be more careful in the future.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


(Q) And like we keep telling you, you don't know what you're talking about.Then make your case that science has its own moral base, independent from philosophy.
All I see is agreement.
Its one of those no brainers, ‘Of course science has no morals or ethics of its own, it is not able to derive any.’

~ ~ ~ ~


BHN"After all, a valueless endeavor, is, without value."


Wesmorris: No. Your play on words doesn't really work.I thought it worked quite well.

P'raps the implication is that science and technology should be more "medicinal" in practice, for us as a whole, instead of all the pollution and waste drama.
But how much is medicine "outside" of it? It bridges humanities, anthropology and all that, with the "hard' sciences.

Interesting point. Medicine has more ethical issues than any other science. Because of the inherent subjectivity? To Wesmorris's point, it deals with the human body - a complex, non-linear, difficult to model system, and its relationship to the environment, another complex, non-linear system.

Medicine reflects two different styles of thinking within the Eastern and Western forms of practice. Eastern medicine developed accupuncture, and western medicine accepted the practice without fully explaining how it works, becuase it does work, as determined by reproducible studies of it's effect - and despite the fact that the eastern model that created it is abhorrent to western scientific thinking.

Maybe their is hope after all.

Ha! Even scientists depend on faith.

You think that's AIR you're breathing?

Well, okay it probably is but air is a really loose term if you nitpick it. Really.

Don't stop breathing air while you nitpick. A rose by any other name

Then make your case that science has its own moral base, independent from philosophy.

Science is a method, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[QUOTE]Untrue!

Hehe, well sort of true. I meant - they try to remove it from the methodology as much as possible. I think that is true, not merely partly true. I did not mean they skirt the issue of consciousness, the experiencer. My God half the science journals out there seem to be fussing over that topic.

Oh great.. :(

I meant - they try to remove it from the methodology as much as possible. I think that is true, not merely partly true. I did not mean they skirt the issue of consciousness, the experiencer. My God half the science journals out there seem to be fussing over that topic.

Ah, well yeah. I mean when you say it like that....

Oh great.. :(
What did I do now?

What did I do now?

Beherenow did it this time.. ;)

Oh, good. I actually thought I'd found a delightful neutral ground that was unlike me. And then it was like 'there he goes again'. My projections.

(Q) Science is a method, you have no idea what you're talking about.It seems to me you are playing with words here, and I will be grateful if you can prove me wrong.

A process produces something, how can it be any other way.
There is a beginning, a progression, a development, a moving to a new reality, something new is produced or the process is useless, or so I would say.
We might call this product of the process of science a particular name. That shouldn’t be so hard.
Clearly my preference has be to call the produce of science, science. This does not please you, so I ask for another term that we can use when we talk about the results of the process known as science.

The technological advances, the fruits of science. Tell me what to call them, and I will probably agree. I only ask for the nice neat term that suits the scientifically minded.
If you tell me there is no such term I will say you are playing with words, because I am not the only one who refers to the fruits of science, ot the product of the process of science to be science.

Science is one of those recursive terms we use with equanimity.
Like the word "meaning", it refers to itself, to define itself.

Can abstraction be abstracted? What language would we use? Why do we analogise all the time?
A process is a thing we invent, to mark a beginning and an end, or a "result". But a result is just another beginning, of course.

It seems to me you are playing with words here, and I will be grateful if you can prove me wrong.

A process produces something, how can it be any other way.
There is a beginning, a progression, a development, a moving to a new reality, something new is produced or the process is useless, or so I would say.
We might call this product of the process of science a particular name. That shouldn’t be so hard.
Clearly my preference has be to call the produce of science, science. This does not please you, so I ask for another term that we can use when we talk about the results of the process known as science.

The technological advances, the fruits of science. Tell me what to call them, and I will probably agree. I only ask for the nice neat term that suits the scientifically minded.
If you tell me there is no such term I will say you are playing with words, because I am not the only one who refers to the fruits of science, ot the product of the process of science to be science.

What is wrong with calling the product of science knowledge ?

It seems to me you are playing with words here, and I will be grateful if you can prove me wrong.

No one has to prove you wrong, you need to understand what science entails before you spout nonsense. Try a dictionary first.

Myles What is wrong with calling the product of science knowledge ?Bcause there are other types of knowledge besides scientific. I have knowledge of my family members, and that is not scientific knowledge.


~ ~ ~

Vkothii But a result is just another beginning, of course. All things are transient.

(Q) No one has to prove you wrong, you need to understand what science entails before you spout nonsense. Try a dictionary first.What an informative post. Now I know so much more than before you posted.

What an informative post. Now I know so much more than before you posted.

Excellent. Glad to have been of service. :)

And cheap at half the price!

It was a freebie. Next time, you'll get an invoice.

[QUOTE=BeHereNow;1774707]Bcause there are other types of knowledge besides scientific. I have knowledge of my family members, and that is not scientific knowledge.

~ ~ ~

All things are transient.

What on earth are you getting at ? The knowledge you have of your family is known as knowledge by acquaintance. I honestly suggest you should cease posting until you have sufficient "knowledge" to do so because you are very confused.

BeHereNow,
I really urge you to accept what seems obvious to several of us here, that science is simply a methodology and as such neither has, nor requires ethics. It is a process. Now the practitioners of that process, both in applying the process and in using the product of that process are subject to ethical considerations, but that is quite a different thing.
Do some scientists lie? Yes. Do some scientists cheat? Yes. Do some scientists knowlingly engage in work that will harm fellow humans? Yes. Does this mean science is unethical and has no values? No. It means those scientists in those situations behaved unethically. Science is neutral. Science is a methodology.

But a result is just another beginning, of course.

All things are transient.

[lowest common denominator]

oh snap, he just called your mom a transient.

[/lowest comment denominator]

[popcorn]

Hipparchia Science is neutral. Science is a methodology.Can we agree that science is amoral?
Here is my point. There are moral decisions to be made.
We should be able to agree that these decisions should be based on objective truth, to whatever extent possible, according to our belief system.
These objective truths (to whatever extent possible) which are imperative for making sound moral judgments, are not available to science.
There are those who are not scientists, who need what can only be described as the Truth, in order to guide Science (and all other endeavors as well).

Science has its own vocabulary, and uses many words also used by philosophy. Science does not own these words.

The word knowledge has meaning outside the sphere of Science.
In a philosophy thread, it should be accepted that words might have a philosophical meaning, that goes beyond the jargon of Science.
Do we disagree?

These objective truths (to whatever extent possible) which are imperative for making sound moral judgments, are not available to science.

Scientists are people, and people have some form of ethics/morals. Scientists comprise "science" in the form you're currently using it, therefore - scientists have access to ethics/morals.

wesmorris Scientists are people, and people have some form of ethics/morals. Scientists comprise "science" in the form you're currently using it, therefore - scientists have access to ethics/morals.Of course. I've said the same thing myself in this thread.
My point is, science will not provide the morals or ethics. There are truths outside of science, and the moral/ethics issue is a prime example.

I get the repeated feeling some individuals believe Science answers all good questions, and it just ain't so.

Science answers how questions, not why questions. Morality and ethics are why questions, as in "why shouldn't we do this?", so they're not in the realm of science. You could have just said that and I doubt anyone would have disagreed with you. No need to go prancing around it with vague talk of 'values' and science being a 'valueless' endevour.

My point is, science will not provide the morals or ethics.

That in itself is no point at all, as it assumes someone has claimed that science could, would or should provide them - which is silly.

There are truths outside of science, and the moral/ethics issue is a prime example.

Okay, so?

I get the repeated feeling some individuals believe Science answers all good questions, and it just ain't so.

So your complaint isn't that science has no value... even though that's what you said it was - but rather "some people think stuff about science that isn't true", or perhaps that science is "the new god"?

Well if I get you on that, then well yeah. You expect more from a shit-ton of complicated apes?

Perhaps you could provide a resource by which one can find definitive answers on questions that don't have definititive answers?

You seem to have started with the pretense that science is bad and should be abandoned completely. At least that's the impression I got. I don't see how from what you wrote one could argue that you didn't mean that.

Are you backing away from that or did you not intend that?

I still don't see why you apparently think people in general... or just "some people" consider science to be some source of morals or ethics.

Is logic science in your opinion? If so, then I'd say morals and ethics are easily derivable with logic. I don't think logic is really a science, so I wouldn't argue that. Regardless I guess I'm just confused. I still don't see much merit to what you say you're trying to say.

Pardon I thought i'd refer back to take it in context rather than otherwise.

Can we agree that science is amoral?

I know you weren't asking me but I'm butting in. Yeah.

Here is my point. There are moral decisions to be made.

Okay.

We should be able to agree that these decisions should be based on objective truth, to whatever extent possible, according to our belief system.

There is no objective truth as I see it, only utility. For instance: Certainly I would agree that there is a star at the center of our solar system that provides light and warmth to our planet. That I would agree only makes it popular or a belief. I can see the star in the sky during the day. This makes me think it's likely that theres a star there. In fact, it's likely enough to me that questioning it is pointless, as I can't "beherenow" and honestly contradict it. Since people all seem to agree with that assessment, at least those with whom the topic has come up - and it seems true to me - then there is utility in believing it to be true (plenty of other reasons to think so, each of which add to the utility).

That moral decisions must be made is unrelated to science.

These objective truths (to whatever extent possible) which are imperative for making sound moral judgments, are not available to science.

You just seem to misunderstand what actually happens.

Scientists design experiments, take data from them, place that data into a mathematical model of the system being tested, plug the results into a statistical hypothesis and test it to form a confidence interval or something on the prediction made by the model. FROM THAT, people have to make judgements regarding the validity, relevance and utility of the relationships, facts or whatever established by the scientific process.

No matter what, there is no means by which to garner truly "objective fact" in the strictest sense, as all information/sensation experienced by an individual is contained within that individual and as such, cannot be validated as objective. The moment at which it becomes thought, it is rendered subjective.

You're right that "science doesn't offer proof" and I think the text following "FROM THAT" in my preceding paragraph hints as to why. But nothing does, whereas you seem to expect otherwise or I don't see a basis for your complaint.

There are those who are not scientists, who need what can only be described as the Truth, in order to guide Science (and all other endeavors as well).

the Truth is what people find for themselves. do you have ONE valid, hard-to-question suggestion as to where people should look for 'Truth'?

Now, I will allow you that people people just accept stuff from science as Truth, but again when reduced IMO that is a matter of utility. Some people find political advantage, ego gratification, social consolation, or what-the-hell-ever utility in believing what they do.

My point is, science will not provide the morals or ethics. There are truths outside of science, and the moral/ethics issue is a prime example.

First Science is not a thing. It does not have the ability to act it is simply a method.

The only tool we have to study and understand morality is the scientific method.


There are no truths outside the scientific method. 2+2 = 4 is a truth, backed up with much science, irrefutable, undeniable truth.

Do not kill another human, is not a moral truth. We can all imagine a circumstance where killing a human would be required morally. We make that decision every day as we demand lower taxes, taxes that would otherwise save a life. Morality is subjective, it changes from day to day hour to hour, second to second.

We all have caused death. Those that use science to help humanity are at least doing there best to reduce suffering. Those that deny the worth of the scientific method are blinded to the result of actions that are taken every day.

I use the scientific method to help humanity. I use scientific method to understand and make scene of the billions of differing moralities. Should a study suggest that drawing people like you up on a rack to be slowly killed in agonising pain will lead to less human suffering. Then reluctantly so be it because ethically I a bound to do so, because the scientific method has told me a truth. Should a mistake have introduced into the method I will apologize and do my best to make amends.

Thank science for your heath, for your advanced education and cultural morality. For without it you would still be scratching the ground for food, fighting for sex, and dieing in horrible torment way.

Can we agree that science is amoral?
If we are stating it is amoral in the same way a cabbage, a calendar, or a jug of orange juice are amoral, then we can so agree.
There are moral decisions to be made.
These moral decisions do not require the active participation of cabbages and the like.
We should be able to agree that these decisions should be based on objective truth, to whatever extent possible, according to our belief system. These objective truths (to whatever extent possible) which are imperative for making sound moral judgments, are not available to science.While science is not the sole source of objectives truths it is especially effective at uncovering probable objective truths, so on this point we are diametrically opposed and I am puzzled by how you could reach such an erroneous conclusion.

There are those who are not scientists, who need what can only be described as the Truth, in order to guide Science (and all other endeavors as well).You are talking about guiding the products of science and that is another matter entirely.
Science has its own vocabulary, and uses many words also used by philosophy. Science does not own these words.
Nor does philosophy. What is your point?

blindman The only tool we have to study and understand morality is the scientific method.


There are no truths outside the scientific method.Here we have it folks. This is exactly what I am talking about.
I won’t say it is impossible to understand morality outside the scientific method, but I will say it is certainly not a necessity.

The word “Truth” is used by disciplines other than science, and it seems some people are oblivious to that fact.
Certainly there is a scientific truth, that is dependent of the scientific method, and individuals are free to accept this as the only kind of truth for themselves.

To assume that every discipline is dependent on the scientific method is. . .not being realistic, not being aware of the truth.

In the case of morals, most strong supporters of science agree that morality issues are a different realm than science, but only when there back is against the wall.
What blindman was bold enough to state outright, is a underlying tone in many other comments.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks wesmorris, for the considered reply. I agree with everything except the idea that I do not “get it”.
Blindman’s comment is evidence that I do get it, and what I point out has utility.

No matter what, there is no means by which to garner truly "objective fact" in the strictest sense, as all information/sensation experienced by an individual is contained within that individual and as such, cannot be validated as objective. The moment at which it becomes thought, it is rendered subjective.This is a scientific viewpoint, and I feel no need to change your mind concerning these things, except to point out that in other disciplines, words take on new meanings, and understanding changes.

There is a sense in which every application of the scientific method depends on the human mind and thoughts, and in that sense all of the proclamations of science are subjective, according to the way you have defined subjective, or so I will argue if you want me to start a new thread.

Science is an attempt to use subjective tools and a subjective mind to understand the objective.
With this understanding, it is a moot point to mention that other disciplines (not dependent on the scientific method) only have subjective truth to offer.


That in itself is no point at all, as it assumes someone has claimed that science could, would or should provide them - which is silly.
“ BHN There are truths outside of science, and the moral/ethics issue is a prime example. ”
wesmorris Okay, so?
See my post above in reply to blindman, for an explanation of the “so”.

So your complaint isn't that science has no value... even though that's what you said it was - but rather "some people think stuff about science that isn't true", or perhaps that science is "the new god"? I have used a play on words to get attention. Shoot me.

I have said repeatedly that science offers much, but the caveat is that it does not offer all truth, only scientific truth. For some that is the only kind of truth there is. And yet, scientists need moral truth to guide there endeavors, and moral truths are not derived from the method of science, for the vast majority of professionals who study moral truths.

You seem to have started with the pretense that science is bad and should be abandoned completely. At least that's the impression I got. I don't see how from what you wrote one could argue that you didn't mean that.My apologies for the misleading, sensationalist approach. If I had it to do over, I would probably do it the same, as is explained further down.
I will say that I believe it is a bad thing when science is seen as the be all and end all of human knowledge and understanding. The "new god", as you say.

I have said many good things about science in various posts, and can find those if you truly believe I am changing my position. My position has been constant.
Science is a wonderful thing, which has added great knowledge and wonderful comfort and conveniences for mankind.
The rest of the story is that science is dependent on philosophy for a moral compass.

Science without morality would be a terrible thing, which is a moot point because scientists have morality (but they didn’t get it from the scientific method).
It is that parenthetic comment that I believes escapes many people on a conscious level. With their backs against the wall, most of them concede that yes, of course science does not give all of the answers.
I felt the need to put some backs against the wall. I do not regret my decision.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

xelios Science answers how questions, not why questions. Morality and ethics are why questions, as in "why shouldn't we do this?", so they're not in the realm of science. You could have just said that and I doubt anyone would have disagreed with you. No need to go prancing around it with vague talk of 'values' and science being a 'valueless' endevour.Well, we still have individuals disagreeing with you and me, even after your post. RE: blindman’s post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1776014&postcount=76).

The angle or attitude of this thread came out of the flat denial that there is any proof for anything that is not derived from the scientific method. This came out in other threads. A sensible approach seemed to have no impact. I tried your suggestion, it did not work.

There are humanist and religious explanations of the why.
Scientists accept them, and give science the moral compass it needs.
Science is a piece of the whole, not the whole.
We agree.

~ ~ ~ ~

I am sorry turdickin dropped out of the discussion because many good points were raised. Scienctists have often shown a flaggrant disregard for the "why" beliefs of many nations or societies, because of the teachings of science, devoid of morality.
Without any understanding of the moral beliefs of indigenous peoples, we have disecrated sacred sites, not to mention the bodily harm done to the living.
We do not have to accept the beliefs of others for ourselves, but we should have respect, and that respect is often ignored, in the name of progress, or science.

Science is a good thing. It just needs help, for added values.

Nor does philosophy. What is your point?In a philosophy section, philosophical meanings should be up for discussion.
The myopic view that that sciences answers all questions is fine in a science section. This is not a science section.
I realize I am preaching to the choir in many cases. Not eveyone needs to be convinced, as they already have a common understanding with myself.
It seems you agree.

If you support the position of blindman (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1776014&postcount=76), that only science, or only the scientific method, can study morality, then we do not agree.

If you support the position of blindman, that only science, or only the scientific method, can study morality, then we do not agree.

We can all study any of the agents of existence. We can all make suppositions that describe our reality. But we as a social, cultural animal must accept the fact that our perspective is tainted. That what we wish for influences our perceptions. It is the method that I preach, though not perfect it is by far better then personal wants and organized manipulations .

Morality has no meaning in the practice of science. Nor has existence meaning. Be careful not to place purpose on existence.


Science is a piece of the whole, not the whole.

Granted just a piece is science. But a piece that is by far greater then the individual and manipulated truths made up to fit human cognitive functions. Attempts to describe processes still outside the understanding of scientific methods.

One must except truth only on proof and not make a great supposition to truth from I think there for I am…

The angle or attitude of this thread came out of the flat denial that there is any proof for anything that is not derived from the scientific method.
There isn't proof for philosophical things, if there were they wouldn't be philosophical! Proof is something that's applicable to how questions, you explain to me how something works then you prove it. You can't prove a why question. Prove why we shouldn't steal from other people. That task doesn't even make logical sense. You can give your opinion about why we shouldn't, and that opinion might be good enough to convince me, but it's not proof. Someone may come along with a different opinion about it, and who are you to say his opinion is wrong?

blindman We can all study any of the agents of existence. We can all make suppositions that describe our reality. But we as a social, cultural animal must accept the fact that our perspective is tainted. That what we wish for influences our perceptions. It is the method that I preach, though not perfect it is by far better then personal wants and organized manipulations .

Morality has no meaning in the practice of science. Nor has existence meaning. Be careful not to place purpose on existence. The only purpose of existence, is existence.
I am glad to hear you say morality has no meaning in science.



BHN Science is a piece of the whole, not the whole.
blindman Granted just a piece is science. But a piece that is by far greater then the individual and manipulated truths made up to fit human cognitive functions.
Attempts to describe processes still outside the understanding of scientific methods.It is my understanding that often the original idea comes first, and the scientific justification follows.
The truth is seen, and science justifies it.
Some truth is seen, and science is not able to justify it.

One must except truth only on proof and not make a great supposition to truth from I think there for I am…One should accept truth when it is provided.
Recognizing truth is not a skill limited to science.
If this were not true, would you say there was no recognition of truth before science?

Xelios There isn't proof for philosophical things, if there were they wouldn't be philosophical!Philosophy is a process. Philosophers become convinced of a truth, by philosophy.

Proof is something that's applicable to how questions, you explain to me how something works then you prove it. You can't prove a why question. Science is concerned about convincing other people, providing acceptable proof. Philosophers are concerned about convincing themselves.

Prove why we shouldn't steal from other people. That task doesn't even make logical sense. You can give your opinion about why we shouldn't, and that opinion might be good enough to convince me, but it's not proof. Someone may come along with a different opinion about it, and who are you to say his opinion is wrong?
You use the word proof in a scientific sense. In a philosophical sense, proof is that which convinces the mind.

Experiences can convince the mind.

If I know it happened to me, I know it is true.
But I might not have a shred of scientific evidence.
A scientist might not be convinced, where another might.

If I know it happened to me, I know it is true.Depending on how it was perceived, surely.
But I might not have a shred of scientific evidence.If you saw it or heard it, or smelled, touched or tasted it, then you have empirical evidence. How is direct sensory experience not scientific (an observation)?
What status does a group give to an individual observation?
The status of an individual claim (of observation of something), is given less status than a group observation, generally.

Vkothii If you saw it or heard it, or smelled, touched or tasted it, then you have empirical evidence. How is direct sensory experience not scientific (an observation)?
What status does a group give to an individual observation?
The status of an individual claim (of observation of something), is given less status than a group observation, generally.If I say I saw a unicorn, will you say I have scientific evidence for a unicorn?
If I say I experienced the truth of absolute morals, will you say I have scientific evidence?
If I say I experienced the presence of god on earth, will you say I have scientific evidence?
If I say I have experienced the powers of voodoo, will you say I have scientific evidence?
These are all direct sensory input. I have (supposedly) sensed all of these things with my being, will others count them as scientific evidence?

Xelios says to me, “prove why we shouldn’t steal”. He will not accept my answer if it cannot be demonstrated to him with equal validity, and he does not trust my recount of an experience that he can not share. He must have a similar experience, or similar evidence (like maybe a hundred of his trusted friends who say what I say).

To the science minded, empirical evidence is only acceptable if it can be shared with others, with similar clarity. RE: UFOs.

If I say I saw a unicorn, will you say I have scientific evidence for a unicorn?

You would have evidence. It would not be evidence for others. Not yet in any case. If it was part of some sort of pattern, then it could become evidence for others. Of what, might be an issue?

Philosophy is a process. Philosophers become convinced of a truth, by philosophy.
There is not truth in philosophy. With no way to seperate a true philosophy from an untrue philosophy you have something that's subjective. There's no such thing as objective truth in philosophy.
You use the word proof in a scientific sense. In a philosophical sense, proof is that which convinces the mind.
You do a lot of word play don't you? If you mention proof in the scientific sense and then say philosophy also has proofs without mentioning the differences, I'm going to assume you're talking about the same meaning of the word proof. Your arguement boils down to simple semantics. Of course there are ideas which convince other people in philosophy, and I could call them proofs, but they're in no way the same as proofs in the scientific sense. Maybe you should be calling them 'scientific proofs' and 'philosophical proofs'?

A philisophical proof is that which convinces a mind of an idea. It's subjective. There is no such thing as an objective proof in philosophy, in science every proof is objective, independent from individual opinion. They're not the same at all.

If I say I saw a unicorn...
If I say I experienced the truth of absolute morals...
If I say I experienced the presence of god on earth...
If I say I have experienced the powers of voodoo...

I'd say you are hallucinating or are on medications.

These are all direct sensory input. I have (supposedly) sensed all of these things with my being, will others count them as scientific evidence?

There all fabrications from the imagination.

I'd say you are hallucinating or are on medications.

There all fabrications from the imagination.

You should stay away from the philosophy forums.:bugeye:

You should stay away from forums. :poke:

BHN Philosophy is a process. Philosophers become convinced of a truth, by philosophy.
Science is concerned about convincing other people, providing acceptable proof. Philosophers are concerned about convincing themselves.
You use the word proof in a scientific sense. In a philosophical sense, proof is that which convinces the mind.

Xelios replies:

There is not truth in philosophy. With no way to seperate a true philosophy from an untrue philosophy you have something that's subjective. What rubbish. Philosophy defines truth. Of course every other discipline is free to define truth as well. There is a legal meaning, a medical meaning, an honor system meaning, and even a scientific meaning.
There's no such thing as objective truth in philosophy.
You do a lot of word play don't you? If you mention proof in the scientific sense and then say philosophy also has proofs without mentioning the differences, I'm going to assume you're talking about the same meaning of the word proof.I did not mention proof in a scientific sense. If you had read the posts (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1771503&postcount=7)in this thread or if you knew what your were talking about, you would know the regulars on this board say there is no scientific proof. It does not exist.

There is proof for philosophical things, philosophical proof.
There is no proof for scientific things, no scientific proof.
Get it?

Your arguement boils down to simple semantics. Of course there are ideas which convince other people in philosophy, and I could call them proofs, but they're in no way the same as proofs in the scientific sense. Maybe you should be calling them 'scientific proofs' and 'philosophical proofs'?No need to refer to scientific proofs, since they do not exist.
You have the same myopic view as the other natives. In a philosophy section, you seem to think philosophical terms are not acceptable.
News flash.
In a philosophy section you should expect philosophy usage of terms.
Argue against them, please. But expect them, at a minimum.

A philosophical proof is that which convinces a mind of an idea. It's subjective. There is no such thing as an objective proof in philosophy, in science every proof is objective, independent from individual opinion. They're not the same at all.Now that we all know there is no scientific proof, your statement takes on new meaning.
You say in science every proof is objective, your friends say in science there is no proof.

You have three courses to defend statements.

1) You may argue that your friends do not know what they are talking about, and of course there is proof in science. I will be glad to agrue their position against this stand.

2)You may argue that since there are no proofs in science, there is or course no objective proof in science. There is only objective evidence, which convinces the mind, and is thus, by your usage of the words, subjective proof. That is, surrender.

3)You may duck and run.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Asguard

You did not address me in your post, but I will say there is nothing in your writing I disagree with.
This is not to say, I do not expect we have universal agreement, but we have agreement in what you have expressed here.

Like I said, you're argueing semantics. You see it on the religion forum sometimes too, with the word 'faith'. You could argue that people have faith in science to provide the right answers, that unless you do an experiment yourself you must have faith in the scientists who have to provide the right answers. Therefor scientists have faith too, or?

Problem is with such a broad definition of faith it could apply to anything. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that gravity will keep working 5 minutes from now. Ad infinitum.

Same thing here with the word 'proof'. There's no 'proof' in philosophy. There are arguements, which may or may not convince someone of your idea. But there's no construct in philosophy (outside of one) that establishes, without a doubt, that something is true.

Now take mathematics, a science. You can write a proof of an equation that establishes, without a doubt, that it's valid. That's proof.

You can amass enough evidence for a theory that establishes, without a doubt, that it's true. The existence of DNA is proven, there's no arguement against it. It exists regardless of what you or anyone else believes. Look at a cell under a powerful microscope and you can see it with your own eyes. That's proof.

The only instance of proof in philosophy is a logical arguement. A circle is to the right of a square. A triangle is to the left of the square. The circle cannot be to the left of the square. If the premise is true the conclusion can't be anything else, that's proof.

Now give me proof of a philosophical arguement. Say, that people should not steal from one another. Show me that it must be so and can't be any other way.

Xelios

You insistent on using the Scientific meaning of proof, in a Philosophical context.
I get it.

You have not addressed your disagreement with the regulars who say there is no scientific proof.
Who has it wrong?
You may get them to agree that there are mathematical proofs, but mathematics is only a subdivision of science. Clearly their position is that in the non-mathematical sciences (which is the vast majority), there is no scientific proof.

Science can prove nothing. At any time, it's the best explanation we have and that is all. If something better comes along, a scientifis theory will be modified or abandoned. Look at the history of science to see the process at work.

They only people who are 100% certain that they are right are those who are ignorant of the scientific method, those who lack the intelligence to understand it and those who never take their noses out of their holy books which, they believe, have all the answers.

What rubbish. Philosophy defines truth. Of course every other discipline is free to define truth as well. There is a legal meaning, a medical meaning, an honor system meaning, and even a scientific meaning.

Philosophy can speculate or reason on questions of existence, knowledge or ethics, hence it might do so on the topic of truth, but it certainly doesn't define truth. For example, it is not a philosophical speculation or rationale that the speed of light is a constant, it is a measurement.

There is proof for philosophical things, philosophical proof.

Yes, words for more words.

There is no proof for scientific things, no scientific proof.
Get it?

There is factual evidence, which the scientific method can help produce an understanding of how things work.


In a philosophy section you should expect philosophy usage of terms.
Argue against them, please. But expect them, at a minimum.

Often, as you've demonstrated, those usage of terms are muddled due to a misunderstanding of the terms themselves.

3)You may duck and run.

From the salvo of hokum propelled across our bows?

(Q) Philosophy can speculate or reason on questions of existence, knowledge or ethics, hence it might do so on the topic of truth, but it certainly doesn't define truth. For example, it is not a philosophical speculation or rationale that the speed of light is a constant, it is a measurement.You take my meaning the wrong way.
By defines truth, I mean when a meaning is put to the word “truth”, it is philosophy that decides want that meaning is. It does not decide what is true or not, but it decides what it means to be true. The meaning of truth varies in different disciplines, because philosophy and needs varies in different disciplines.

The problem I have is calling something (the findings of science) objective, when it recognizes itself that thereis a hint of subjectivity, or limitation (which to me amounts to the same thing).
Do you say the findings of science are objective, or almost objective?

You take my meaning the wrong way.
By defines truth, I mean when a meaning is put to the word “truth”, it is philosophy that decides want that meaning is. It does not decide what is true or not, but it decides what it means to be true. The meaning of truth varies in different disciplines, because philosophy and needs varies in different disciplines.

The problem I have is calling something (the findings of science) objective, when it recognizes itself that thereis a hint of subjectivity, or limitation (which to me amounts to the same thing).
Do you say the findings of science are objective, or almost objective?

Why not make life easy for yourself. Use a PC, drive a car, fly in a plane, have medical treatment and ask yoursel whether you question matters !

There are no degrees of objectivity. To talk of something being almost objective is nonsense.

Do you say the findings of science are objective, or almost objective?

The findings of science are observed, hence they are entirely and completely objective.

They are so objective, a machine can be built in which your digits pressing lightly on pads will produce words we can all read from all over the world, almost instantaneously. So objective, a machine can be built that will reshape your eyes and give you clear vision. So objective, a machine can be built to carry you to the moon where you can dawn a suit and swing a golf club in 1/6th gravity.

So objective, you may come out of your cave and join the 21st century.

The findings of science are observed, hence they are entirely and completely objective.

:roflmao:

I always thought sensory perceptions were subjective?

(Q)

First, the is the obvious, of what S.A.M. stated. Observation is objective.

Second there is the problem of Proof. Is there proof in the physical/biological sciences or not? If there is proof, why do you disagree with the other regulars?
If there is no proof, how is that not subjective?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Myles

Same questions.

(Q)

First, the is the obvious, of what S.A.M. stated. Observation is objective.

Second there is the problem of Proof. Is there proof in the physical/biological sciences or not? If there is proof, why do you disagree with the other regulars?
If there is no proof, how is that not subjective?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Myles

Same questions.

I pass.

Myles I pass.
Good answer.
A real quandary.
For myself, I will say science provides philisophical proof, which is as objective as reasonably possible. (Except for those things currently out of bounds for science.)
In the end, mankind will always have the delimma of trying to understand the objective with subjective tools, measurements, and perspectives.

[quote]Second there is the problem of Proof. Is there proof in the physical/biological sciences or not? If there is proof, why do you disagree with the other regulars?
If there is no proof, how is that not subjective?

The problem here is in your misconceptions and lack of understanding of terms and definitions, as well as what science entails.

That much hasn't changed.

In other words, you have yet to make an argument.

Good answer.
A real quandary.
For myself, I will say science provides philisophical proof, which is as objective as reasonably possible. (Except for those things currently out of bounds for science.)
In the end, mankind will always have the delimma of trying to understand the objective with subjective tools, measurements, and perspectives.

You misunderstood my intention. I have no interest in discussing the matter with you because you show no understanding of what you wish to debate. I cannot see this changing,

You have not even picked up the simple point I made that there are no degrees of objectivity because you say above " .....as objective as reasonably possible. "

You insistent on using the Scientific meaning of proof, in a Philosophical context.
I get it.

You have not addressed your disagreement with the regulars who say there is no scientific proof.
Who has it wrong?
Clearly their position is that in the non-mathematical sciences (which is the vast majority), there is no scientific proof.
Semantics. People are talking about (or in your case, interpreting) different definitions of the word proof. I don't think we disagree.

"Proof" in philosophy is nothing more than words that might or might not convince someone else of an idea. An arguement. An opinion.

Maybe you could philosophically prove why people shouldn't steal now?

Xelios Semantics. People are talking about (or in your case, interpreting) different definitions of the word proof. I don't think we disagree. So you would say there is no scientific proof in the biological sciences. Just varying degrees of subjectivity?
Scientific proof is just an extremely high degree of probability, not absolute certainty. This is the point with which you agree.

"Proof" in philosophy is nothing more than words that might or might not convince someone else of an idea. An arguement. An opinion. That’s a strange usage.
I would say proof is that which convinces the mind, particularly the mind of the self, and has nothing inherently to do with words. Words could be used I suppose, certainly not needed. Certainly to be avoided, because of their subjective nature. Words provide the weakest type of philosophical proof.

Maybe you could philosophically prove why people shouldn't steal now?Prove something I do not believe? Not interested.
Maybe you could scientifically prove why people should steal now. If you are not able to do that, I will have evidence to consider that people should not steal now.
If science cannot prove it is true, there is likelihood it is false.
I have heard that argument for the nonexistence of god.

Myles

Please comment on Fraggle Rocker (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1778321&postcount=4)'s meaning of scientific proof:
"all scientists agree that the probability of its falsification is so small as to be reasonably dismissed, but nonetheless some give it a higher probability than others."

Are to say simply that the results of the Process of Science are subjective?

Xelios

I see some of the problem.
What you call philosophical proof I would call a philosophical argument.
By philosophical proof, I mean the philosophical meaning of proof (as opposed to scientific proof, which is the scientific meaning of proof).

The philosophical meaning of proof is to convince the mind. That which convinces the mind, is a meaning of proof, not in the scientific sense, but in the philosophical sense.

This would be clear considering all of my posts, but may not have been clear from what you have read.

A philosophical argument may convince the mind that particular evidence is suitable for a belief in truth. That particular evidence now becomes a type of proof, but not in the scientific sense.
I consider that personal experiences (that I do not doubt), convince my mind, and therefore serve as a type of proof for my mind.

Semantics. People are talking about (or in your case, interpreting) different definitions of the word proof. I don't think we disagree.

"Proof" in philosophy is nothing more than words that might or might not convince someone else of an idea. An arguement. An opinion.

Maybe you could philosophically prove why people shouldn't steal now?

This is easy to do if you have a few assumptions ya know. One could logically prove it wrong so long as the supporting assumptions are agreed upon.

So you would say there is no scientific proof in the biological sciences. Just varying degrees of subjectivity?
Scientific proof is just an extremely high degree of probability, not absolute certainty. This is the point with which you agree.
Not subjectivity, no. It's all objective, but there's always the possibility that new evidence will reshape a theory. Very rarely does a proven theory turn out to be completely wrong, incomplete maybe, but not wrong.

For example, the existence of evolution is proven, the mechanism of evolution is not.
The philosophical meaning of proof is to convince the mind. That which convinces the mind, is a meaning of proof, not in the scientific sense, but in the philosophical sense.
You can call it that if you want, but I wouldn't agree that it's a type of proof. Proof to me is something that doesn't hinge on your mindset or preconceptions. A proof is valid no matter what you believe, otherwise what's the difference between a proof and an arguement? An arguement is just an arguement until it convinces the other person of your position, then it's suddenly a proof?
Maybe you could scientifically prove why people should steal now. If you are not able to do that, I will have evidence to consider that people should not steal now.
It's a moral question, which as you fully agree isn't in the realm of science. It's philosophy, so it shouldn't be surprising to you that you can't prove that scientifically.
If science cannot prove it is true, there is likelihood it is false.
I have heard that argument for the nonexistence of god.
Not that it's false, but with no way to tell if it's true or not it's a belief, or an opinion.
This is easy to do if you have a few assumptions ya know. One could logically prove it wrong so long as the supporting assumptions are agreed upon.
And if the assumptions are not agreed upon it becomes impossible to prove. I could prove anything if I make a few assumptions that the other party agrees to, the trick is proving something if the other party disagrees. That's something science can do, that philosophy can't. And that's what I would call proof, something that can't be argued with, something that's not dependent on a person's opinions or assumptions to be valid.

I consider that personal experiences (that I do not doubt), convince my mind, and therefore serve as a type of proof for my mind.

Are you referring to your imagination; ie. "personal experiences?"

I consider that personal experiences (that I do not doubt), convince my mind, and therefore serve as a type of proof for my mind.Observation is the most basic form of evidence, and is therefore the cornerstone of the scientific method. Nonetheless, anyone who has served on a jury knows how easily even the most honorable and assiduous among us can err in either the act of observation itself, or in its recording, recall and recounting. Once you've lived as long as I have and had some of your most trusted observations shown to be incontrovertibly wrong, you understand why observations become much more reliable as evidence when they are corroborated by the observations of others. You even learn to be a little more reluctant to insist to others that you know what you're talking about because of your "personal experiences."

Xelios, from previous posts in this thread:

Xelios There is no such thing as an objective proof in philosophy, in science every proof is objective, independent from individual opinion. They're not the same at all.

Not subjectivity, no. It's all objective, but there's always the possibility that new evidence will reshape a theory. Very rarely does a proven theory turn out to be completely wrong, incomplete maybe, but not wrong.
It is clear to me that these quotes are inconsistent to the meaning Fraggle Rocker (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1778321&postcount=4) has given us for

Scientific Knowledge: "all scientists agree that the probability of its falsification is so small as to be reasonably dismissed, but nonetheless some give it a higher probability than others."

I am grateful to him, as I believe this says it much better than my clumsy attempt.
The nonexistence of scientific proof, is also pointed out several times here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1771503&postcount=7):

The conventional wisdom of the board says in science there is no proof (except possibly mathematics), and yet you make comments such as “in science every proof is objective, and …a proven theory. . ..
Is it that you disagree with the conventional wisdom, or was your wording, less correct than it could be, and if so would you please modify your statements, or make a new explanation, to make them accurate and consistent with conventional wisdom.
If you disagree with conventional wisdom, I for one would enjoy a rebuttal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


(Q) Are you referring to your imagination; ie. "personal experiences?"

I am referring to event occurrences of various body parts. Such a broad category of activities could certainly include imagination, as well as artistic expression, sexual fantasies, dreams, and even aspirations, but such things do not have the kind of value worthy of the convincing evidence one might consider as proof.
For yourself, imagination may be sufficient, being as well developed as it appears.

Fraggle Rocker Observation is the most basic form of evidence, and is therefore the
cornerstone of the scientific method. Nonetheless, anyone who has served
on a jury knows how easily even the most honorable and assiduous among
us can err in either the act of observation itself, or in its
recording, recall and recounting. Once you've lived as long as I have and had
some of your most trusted observations shown to be incontrovertibly
wrong, you understand why observations become much more reliable as evidence
when they are corroborated by the observations of others. You even
learn to be a little more reluctant to insist to others that you know what
you're talking about because of your "personal experiences."I find nothing I can disagree with.
I will point out that there is a wide range between simple observation, and related experiences which span decades with awareness and purpose.

Observing the stars one evening will not make me an astronomer.
By observing the stars properly, methodically, repeatedly, consistently, I may become an astronomer, rudimentary though it may be.