Atheism, is it really critical thinking?

[Paulhoff]

For moral guidelines, let us know when 'Paulhoff says so' or 'paximperium says so' or 'Dawkins says so' or 'The UN says so' works as well, or even works at all.
What about the good old "what the law says".

The thing that puts you in jail................ if you break it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[AlBell]

What about the good old "what the law says".

The thing that puts you in jail................ if you break it.

Paul

:) :) :)
I realize atheists put themselves in the position of (in the US) 'if it isn't Un-Constitutional or illegal it's ethical and moral'.

I hope it only gets better for your chosen ideals; worse may come sooner rather than later. Legislation is a strange beast; rational? maybe at times. Mao remains right about the source of political power.

Atheists preach to a very tiny choir, and how critical thinking implies one's best interests are to be at odds with much larger groups of people is a question with no good answer. Of course as long as it's all anonymous blather in meaningless Ivory Towers like JREF, who cares.

[paximperium]

I realize atheists put themselves in the position of (in the US) 'if it isn't Un-Constitutional or illegal it's ethical and moral'. Nope. If you don't understand something AlBell, you could've asked instead of lying about it. Isn't that a sin or something?

I hope it only gets better for your chosen ideals; worse may come sooner rather than later. Legislation is a strange beast; rational? maybe at times. Mao remains right about the source of political power. Oh AlBell, if you are unable to refute a point, could you at least have the decency and honesty to actually say so instead of making excuses?

Atheists preach to a very tiny choir, and how critical thinking implies one's best interests are to be at odds with much larger groups of people is a question with no good answer. Of course as long as it's all anonymous blather in meaningless Ivory Towers like JREF, who cares.Oh AlBell, your point has been completely demolished. The whiny and dishonest "who cares" argument is truly very sad and doesn't even attempt to aknowledge that you have no point. I know that Delusion Based Thinking tends not rely on this "evidence", rationality or intelligence think but please try?

Could you please stop insulting the vast majority of people who aren't idiotic fundie morons who rely on irrationality and pure delusions in their lives? Most religious folk and theist would find your attempts at claiming that their rational beliefs and moderate faith is the same as yours to be really really insulting. In fact, your delusion based beliefs are in the minority and a threat to the liberty of others.

[Beth]

I find it difficult to grasp what he actually is saying. The only thing he's clear on is that science is, in his opinion, somehow woefully incapable of answering moral questions. Yet he also rejects my idea that people are capable of doing that without higher powers, with the aid of science. So I would really like to hear what alternative he is proposing. As I understand Westprog, he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that that science is incapable of answering moral question by itself because science is incapable of deciding on values of various outcomes. Once the values have been established, then science is certainly capable of finding answers to the questions.

It is the process of establishing values is not a scientific endeavor. I gather Westprog finds this to be a crucial point. I agree with him that it is not an entirely scientific endeavor, although I'm not certain about how crucial a point it is in this debate.

More generally, I strongly dislike people 'pressing the issue to see how people respond'. It is a form of manipulating people for your own amusement, not friendly discussion. Pushing a person doing that to make some actual contribution to the discussion is not, in my opinion, particularly rude. No, it's not particularly rude, certainly no more so that what they are doing. I would disagree about it not being part of friendly discussion. However we phrase our posts, our words are always a form of manipulating people and friendly discussion is just a nicer way to phrase it than "a form of manipulating people for your own amusement".

He is certainly not the only person participating in the discussion who is loathe to give his personal opinion/belief. My personal experiences on the internet, and this forum in particular, leave me with no desire to expose my personal feelings on such subjects. This forum can be so harsh that I prefer to speak of ideas without being too firmly attached to them.

And yes, he could be uncertain of his opinion. But then, he could just come out and say that. But the problem is, if he was uncertain, he couldn't be so certain we're wrong, either.

I'm not sure which ideas you are referring to that you feel he is certain that you are wrong about.

[westprog]

The problem is that you are implying a lot, while avoiding actually stating what you really think. You clearly have an opinion on where the absolute moral values should come from. So why do you not come out and clearly state what it is?

Westprog's suggestion that we use a recognition of the Theory of Mind, which seems more reasonable to me.

Linda got it. She disagrees with what I'm saying, but she knows what I'm saying.

[paximperium]

As I understand Westprog, he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that that science is incapable of answering moral question by itself because science is incapable of deciding on values of various outcomes. Once the values have been established, then science is certainly capable of finding answers to the questions.

It is the process of establishing values is not a scientific endeavor. I gather Westprog finds this to be a crucial point. I agree with him that it is not an entirely scientific endeavor, although I'm not certain about how crucial a point it is in this debate.
Like I said. This was established very early in this thread and my discussion with him.
So what's his point? Does he have any?

[AlBell]

Nope. If you don't understand something AlBell, you could've asked instead of lying about it. Isn't that a sin or something

Speaking of not having a point ...

Oh AlBell, if you are unable to refute a point, could you at least have the decency and honesty to actually say so instead of making excuses?
More babble ...


Oh AlBell, your point has been completely demolished. The whiny and dishonest "who cares" argument is truly very sad and doesn't even attempt to aknowledge that you have no point. I know that Delusion Based Thinking tends not rely on this "evidence", rationality or intelligence think but please try?
My point has apparently been demolished by the voices in your head; care to share their thinking with us?


Could you please stop insulting the vast majority of people who aren't idiotic fundie morons who rely on irrationality and pure delusions in their lives? Most religious folk and theist would find your attempts at claiming that their rational beliefs and moderate faith is the same as yours to be really really insulting. In fact, your delusion based beliefs are in the minority and a threat to the liberty of others.
You want a match for that strawman of yours, or do you intend to decorate it for halloween?

[Paulhoff]

I realize atheists put themselves in the position of (in the US) 'if it isn't Un-Constitutional or illegal it's ethical and moral'.
Not believing in a god has nothing to do with that.

You do know that in the bible is is moral to have a slave, and to beat your wife with stick no thicker than your thumb.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

Now all we need is the scoring system to evaluate the respective importance of Life, Liberty, and Personal Security since even those may conflict.

The choice of that scoring system will not be scientific, but will be based on some idea that we can hope will involve reason. But humanist, theist, or neither choices outside the bounds of science will be made.

You still haven't explained why you consider a scoring system to be "outside the bounds of science". Health is also a nebulous concept where choices are made as to the criteria for 'health' such as death or self-perceived health status or functional status with regard to activities of daily living, with similarly subjective relative value. Yet the study of health isn't considered "outside the bounds of science", nor are we told that science cannot inform us what choices to make with regards to health.

If reality which includes human nature isn't a consideration in examining the
'usefulness of methodological naturalism' to derive morals, why bother?

Right. So why did you introduce irrelevant issues?

Actually, no. Once choice of crteria enters the equation, science departs.

Where are getting this nonsense? Science includes choosing relevant criteria. It is a major issue in my field of study (medicine), and I can't really think of a field where it doesn't play some role.

As an aside, since religious thinkers have examined the questions of interest for millenia, what added value has the last couple centuries of humanism provided that already well-plowed field?

Foregoing dependence upon superstitious bronze-age shepherds.

Linda

[fls]

"Human rights" is an arbitrary a concept. There's no scientific justification for the idea of "human rights".

And if you think that "human rights" is just a way for human beings to organise themselves, and is essentially a fiction, then you have to accept it as arbitrary. If you think that it is real, then you have to have some kind of faith. You have to choose one or the other position.

I basically agree. It is only real in the sense that it isn't particularly useful to organize ourselves around the interests of bees. 'Human rights' is clearly directed at those who have an interest in humans.

Linda

[westprog]

You still haven't explained why you consider a scoring system to be "outside the bounds of science". Health is also a nebulous concept where choices are made as to the criteria for 'health' such as death or self-perceived health status or functional status with regard to activities of daily living, with similarly subjective relative value. Yet the study of health isn't considered "outside the bounds of science", nor are we told that science cannot inform us what choices to make with regards to health.


Health is a scientific field of study insofar as it deals with the objective, the repeatable, and the measurable. The further it strays from this, the less scientific it is.

Even the field of mental health, when it is scientific, is based on repeatable observations. I'm sure you're aware of what happens as baseless theorising takes hold.

[fls]

Hmm, this is an interesting debate. I would say morals and values fall within the domain of social science, which actually borrows from multiple epistemologies depending on the researcher. Some social scientific research is detached and objective, seeking to reduce the complexity of social worlds by reducing social problems to simple matters of causality - so for instance, if X happens, Y will necessarily follow. Such social scientific research is probably within positivist territory and would be compatible (and may even rely upon) the scientific method. Think on how dominant medical discourses have categorised disease phenomenon for example, using the ICD10 standard. ICD10 is based on social scientific research and was created to enable disease phenomenon to be easily categorised and handled by the scientific method, hence it is widely used now in clinical practice. This is an example of values being totally absent (i.e. the research was closed to them) from the social research being conducted. Objective, detached. On the other hand, we have other social scientific research which attempts to embrace the seemingly impossible complexity of human interactions by accepting that values and so on are so heavily intertwined with us, that they simply cannot be ignored. Recognising and attempting to understand morals and values does not necessitate the acceptance of a higher being. Indeed, moralistic and value driven behaviour existed long before the human notion of any so called 'deities'. Just because this type of research does not embrace the scientific method, it does not mean that it rejects it (although it can be used this way also).

Where are you getting this stuff? Scientific methodologies include qualitative methods which study values (among other things). And even quantitative methods include value-laden measures. For example , the question "how is your general health?" is asking for a subjective value. It is an example of all those things that are claimed to make something non-science - choice, subjective, value, arbitrary, relative, etc. - yet nobody who's actually familiar with it claims that it's use is non-science. Science as it is actually practiced seems to have little to nothing to do with the claims made about it by the believers/apologists who are hanging out here.

Linda

[paximperium]

I'm sure you're aware of what happens as baseless theorising takes hold.
The irony is beyond measure.

[Mirrorglass]

As I understand Westprog, he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that that science is incapable of answering moral question by itself because science is incapable of deciding on values of various outcomes. Once the values have been established, then science is certainly capable of finding answers to the questions.

It is the process of establishing values is not a scientific endeavor. I gather Westprog finds this to be a crucial point. I agree with him that it is not an entirely scientific endeavor, although I'm not certain about how crucial a point it is in this debate.

It isn't, at least to me. I agree that science cannot provide objective moral values.

The point we disagree on is whether anything can do that. It is my position that objective moral values do not, and cannot exist. I believe that rather than pretend they do, we should instead focus on the things almost all humans want and endeavour to create a society where those things are available to as many people as possible. In other words, I do not believe a moral system, as it is usually defined, is at all necessary.

When I presented this point earlier, it was dismissed, but no alternative was presented apart from a vague, undefined source of absolute morality. (Which I, of course, do not believe exists.)

No, it's not particularly rude, certainly no more so that what they are doing. I would disagree about it not being part of friendly discussion. However we phrase our posts, our words are always a form of manipulating people and friendly discussion is just a nicer way to phrase it than "a form of manipulating people for your own amusement".

Certainly you could say that. My views on what constitutes honest discussion are rather strict, and I am sometimes quite harsh in pushing them on others. My intention is not to insult, but it is sometimes the result.


He is certainly not the only person participating in the discussion who is loathe to give his personal opinion/belief. My personal experiences on the internet, and this forum in particular, leave me with no desire to expose my personal feelings on such subjects. This forum can be so harsh that I prefer to speak of ideas without being too firmly attached to them.

That is understandable; I have been in unpleasant situations a few times myself. It is not that I am asking anyone to firmly stand behind their opinions; I have no problem with people playing devil's advocate. However, if one dismisses an argument from another poster, I find it dishonest to keep one's reasons for doing so to oneself.

I'm not sure which ideas you are referring to that you feel he is certain that you are wrong about.

The idea that human desire combined with intelligence and research is a sufficient base for a set of rules concerning human interaction, and searching for an absolute morality is both fruitless and unnecessary.

[Mirrorglass]

Linda got it. She disagrees with what I'm saying, but she knows what I'm saying.

I must say I am still confused. If Linda properly explained your position in a post, could you provide a link to it?

Also, my apologies for carrying on this argument indirectly in my conversation with Beth. To bring this back to a proper debate, I'd like to restate my position one more time:

Human desire combined with intelligence and research is a sufficient base for a set of rules concerning human interaction, and searching for an absolute morality is both fruitless and unnecessary.

This is not a matter of simply saying 'do whatever you want to do'. It is a matter of defining what the vast majority of humanity desires, and finding out the most effective way of achieving that. I claim that the most effective, and safest way to do this is a society that protects the rights of individuals, quite close to the societies in western countries that generally rank high when standards of living are compared.

Moreover, I claim that it is not possible to find an absolute moral code, or any moral code that people would follow more readily. However, by clearly showing everyone that the society I describe above is the best deal anyone can get, it is possible to reach a society far more stable, pleasant and functional than would be possible by relying on strict moral codes.

[paximperium]

Speaking of not having a point ... You're lying about what atheist believe. Either that or you have no idea what they believe and so making crap up based on your own ignorance is essentially lying.
So are you making crap up or are you lying? Do tell.

More babble ... Oh AlBell, you ACTUALLY need to have a retort. Just claiming things does not magic it away.

My point has apparently been demolished by the voices in your head; care to share their thinking with us? You mean how your idiotic argument about how relative human made "morality" such as laws and the US constitution falsified your idiotic claim about how it does not work? Please AlBell, at least attempt to be honest? It just makes you look really really bad.

You want a match for that strawman of yours, or do you intend to decorate it for halloween?I'm sorry AlBell, while making unsubstantiated claims may work in your fantasy prone world, it does not work like that. You actually need to provide some sort of intelligent and rational retort, which I understand you don't believe in.

The vast majority of theists out there think your version of Christianity to be abhorrent, backward and pretty much oppose it. No strawman needed.

[Jupiter 7]

Where are you getting this stuff? Scientific methodologies include qualitative methods which study values (among other things). And even quantitative methods include value-laden measures. For example , the question "how is your general health?" is asking for a subjective value. It is an example of all those things that are claimed to make something non-science - choice, subjective, value, arbitrary, relative, etc. - yet nobody who's actually familiar with it claims that it's use is non-science. Science as it is actually practiced seems to have little to nothing to do with the claims made about it by the believers/apologists who are hanging out here.

Linda

Where am I getting it from? An Open University module called D822 'Investigating the Social World'. It's a postgraduate course for researchers, not that that means anything special :o or in any way guarantees that the information is sound. :D

You mention 'scientific methodologies' which study values. In what way are they scientific? Is the approach of science not one of detachment and assumed objectivity? How then to study values in such a way, bearing in mind the dilemma presented by the so-called 'subject-object problem'? I'm not saying that scientists do not adopt such methodologies, of course I have read papers in which scientists draw from a mixture of epistemological and methodological approaches, but you cannot call such non-objective approaches scientific in and of themselves. An an approach is not scientific just because it happens to be being used by a scientist.

Anyway, there is still a contingent of researchers out there who regard the natural science model as the 'gold standard' for all research, irrespective of the field of interest - this is prevalent in disciplines such as psychology for example. :p

[Beth]

It isn't, at least to me. I agree that science cannot provide objective moral values.

The point we disagree on is whether anything can do that. It is my position that objective moral values do not, and cannot exist. I'm actually in agreement with you on this point, but it's basically due to my not-so-firmly held belief that there are no objective values of any type. All are arbitrary in their foundation, whether you are talking about meters or moral codes. We can only classify measurements are more or less subjective, with the far end of the less subjective scale being somewhat arbitrarily labeled objective.

I believe that rather than pretend they do, we should instead focus on the things almost all humans want and endeavour to create a society where those things are available to as many people as possible. In other words, I do not believe a moral system, as it is usually defined, is at all necessary. Thanks for stating your belief. This seems quite reasonable to me. I personally would prefer such a society myself.

When I presented this point earlier, it was dismissed, but no alternative was presented apart from a vague, undefined source of absolute morality. (Which I, of course, do not believe exists.) I can think of a few other alternatives, though I wouldn't prefer them personally. None of them are based on an absolute morality.

Certainly you could say that. My views on what constitutes honest discussion are rather strict, and I am sometimes quite harsh in pushing them on others. My intention is not to insult, but it is sometimes the result. I appreciate the clarification. I have rather strong preferences myself regarding the level of civility and am, perhaps, overly sensitive to perceived insults.

That is understandable; I have been in unpleasant situations a few times myself. It is not that I am asking anyone to firmly stand behind their opinions; I have no problem with people playing devil's advocate. However, if one dismisses an argument from another poster, I find it dishonest to keep one's reasons for doing so to oneself. Well, I think at that point it's time to politely agree-to-disagree.

The idea that human desire combined with intelligence and research is a sufficient base for a set of rules concerning human interaction, and searching for an absolute morality is both fruitless and unnecessary. I'm not so sure that it's fruitless and unnecessary. There can be a benefit in striving for an unattainable perfection. The benefit is from the striving, but the motivation for it may come from the unrealizable ideal. It's at least an arguable POV.


Moreover, I claim that it is not possible to find an absolute moral code, or any moral code that people would follow more readily. However, by clearly showing everyone that the society I describe above is the best deal anyone can get, it is possible to reach a society far more stable, pleasant and functional than would be possible by relying on strict moral codes.

I would hope so, but I'm not so certain. Game theory certainly brings some interesting perspectives to what sorts of societies we could expect to be stable.

[AlBell]

Not believing in a god has nothing to do with that.
It doesn't? What's left, other than of course the humanist pickings of centuries of deep thought by theologians, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and various oriental creeds.

You do know that in the bible it is moral to have a slave, and to beat your wife with stick no thicker than your thumb.

Paul

:) :) :)
Not lately. But go ahead, don't let me stop you.

[AlBell]

You mention 'scientific methodologies' which study values. In what way are they scientific? Is the approach of science not one of detachment and assumed objectivity? How then to study values in such a way, bearing in mind the dilemma presented by the so-called 'subject-object problem'? I'm not saying that scientists do not adopt such methodologies, of course I have read papers in which scientists draw from a mixture of epistemological and methodological approaches, but you cannot call such non-objective approaches scientific in and of themselves. An an approach is not scientific just because it happens to be being used by a scientist.
Well said. It's strange that several posters here can't see this problem, which becomes key as moral and ethical questions enter a study.

[Paulhoff]

It doesn't? What's left, other than of course the humanist pickings of centuries of deep thought by theologians, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, and various oriental creeds.


Not lately. But go ahead, don't let me stop you.
So show me where religion is showing any morals. Don't go to the OT, lots of killing there.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

Where am I getting it from? An Open University module called D822 'Investigating the Social World'. It's a postgraduate course for researchers, not that that means anything special :o or in any way guarantees that the information is sound. :D

You mention 'scientific methodologies' which study values. In what way are they scientific?

Hypotheses are tested, conclusions are drawn, results are replicated, theories are expanded, new hypotheses are tested. How is that not scientific?

Is the approach of science not one of detachment and assumed objectivity?

That may be a quality looked for in the researchers, but that doesn't inform you as to the qualities of their subjects. Subjective qualities form a large part of medical research. There are a lot of similarities between medicine and the social sciences. A lot of the literature which was used in my post-graduate courses for public health were from the social sciences.

How then to study values in such a way, bearing in mind the dilemma presented by the so-called 'subject-object problem'?

Are you completely unfamiliar with the methodologies used in medical research? Have you heard of something called 'blinding', for example?

I'm not saying that scientists do not adopt such methodologies, of course I have read papers in which scientists draw from a mixture of epistemological and methodological approaches, but you cannot call such non-objective approaches scientific in and of themselves. An an approach is not scientific just because it happens to be being used by a scientist.

On the other hand, you can't arbitrarily declare something to be non-science simply because the subject matter is subjective when it serves all the same purposes as research whose subject matter is less capricious. And what motivates anyone to do so, anyway? If the purposes is to gain valid and reliable knowledge, why declare some knowledge off-limits a priori? Not that it really seems to matter, since scientists seem to ignore those limits armchair philosophers are wont to put in place.

Linda

[epix]

I was wondering about how atheists base their beliefs upon their being no creator and we simply evolved from apes. Why do apes to this day stay the same as they always were, why did we need to evolve?
If the apes stay the same to this day as they always were, then humans don't exist.

I hope you get the gist, I can't wait for replies, atheism is dumb.

The survival of the fittest: Atheism hasn't evolve over thousands of years like major religions have; Atheism was just created and you need to wait and see. If it's dumb, it won't be able to respond to the changes in the social climate.

[Jupiter 7]

Hypotheses are tested, conclusions are drawn, results are replicated, theories are expanded, new hypotheses are tested. How is that not scientific?

It's not scientific because it is impossible to be objective when studying values. You cannot study values without contaminating them with your own. How can a researcher possibly interpret what a persons values mean without subjecting them to his/her own values in order to ascertain their meaning? Value research is culturally situated, embedded in structures where there are issues of power (for example, between researcher and particpant) and a bewildering range of other issues which act to render detachment and objectivity impossible.

That may be a quality looked for in the researchers, but that doesn't inform you as to the qualities of their subjects. Subjective qualities form a large part of medical research. There are a lot of similarities between medicine and the social sciences. A lot of the literature which was used in my post-graduate courses for public health were from the social sciences.

It's not a quality looked for in all researchers, in fact I would argue that in some disciplines these are qualities to be avoided. But I think you're missing the point I'm making here. I'm not talking about these as personal qualities in a researcher, but as demands of the scientific process. The scientific method demands detachment and objectivity. That is a fact. Values contaminate the scientific process, as they act to bias the results. Therefore, the scientfic method seeks to remove them from the equation. That is a fact about the scientific method which is generally accepted the world over and I'm sure if you Google 'scientific method', you'll see what I mean. Nobody is saying that what we understand to be the world of science today doesn't make use of research which is non-scientific, but to say research on values and meaning making can be based on the scientific method is a nonsense.

Are you completely unfamiliar with the methodologies used in medical research? Have you heard of something called 'blinding', for example?

Yes, I've heard of blinding and even double blinding. But I don't see how blinding will prevent a researcher who is conducting an investigation concerning values from contaminating the data obtained with his/her own values when interpreting the information. Maybe you can explain the process? I'm not unfamiliar with the methodologies used in medical research, no. The point that you seem to be reluctant to understand is that not all medical research is conducted using the scientific method. Why can't you accept that the scientific method is not an appropraite method for investigating values? You seem to be under the impression that I'm launching some kind of attack on the scientific method, when all I'm saying in fact is that it is not a suitable method for all forms of research, social research in particular. Are you familiar with much literature on research methods? I recommend 'Doing postgraduate research' by Steven Potter. :o

On the other hand, you can't arbitrarily declare something to be non-science simply because the subject matter is subjective when it serves all the same purposes as research whose subject matter is less capricious. And what motivates anyone to do so, anyway? If the purposes is to gain valid and reliable knowledge, why declare some knowledge off-limits a priori? Not that it really seems to matter, since scientists seem to ignore those limits armchair philosophers are won't to put in place.

Yes you can. Why? Precisely because it's subjective.

Linda

Nice to meet you Linda. :D

[fls]

It's not scientific because it is impossible to be objective when studying values. You cannot study values without contaminating them with your own. How can a researcher possibly interpret what a persons values mean without subjecting them to his/her own values in order to ascertain their meaning? Value research is culturally situated, embedded in structures where there are issues of power (for example, between researcher and particpant) and a bewildering range of other issues which act to render detachment and objectivity impossible.

I provided you with a simple and straightforward example earlier which contradicts all that you've said above. A well-used and well-validated, entirely subjective, value-laden measurement in medical research is the self-perceived health status. It serves as a better predictor of mortality than any 'objective' measure we have available to us. How does it suddenly become "not science" to study this measure, while doing something much less useful, like measuring blood pressure, gets a free pass?

It's not a quality looked for in all researchers, in fact I would argue that in some disciplines these are qualities to be avoided. But I think you're missing the point I'm making here. I'm not talking about these as personal qualities in a researcher, but as demands of the scientific process.

I understood your point. I was pointing out that it is irrelevant. An understanding of the demands of the scientific process does not inform you about the subject of that process.

The scientific method demands detachment and objectivity. That is a fact. Values contaminate the scientific process, as they act to bias the results. Therefore, the scientfic method seeks to remove them from the equation. That is a fact about the scientific method which is generally accepted the world over and I'm sure if you Google 'scientific method', you'll see what I mean.

I agree. But none of that is relevant to what I have been talking about. I'm not talking about the qualities of the process, I'm talking about the qualities of the subject.

Nobody is saying that what we understand to be the world of science today doesn't make use of research which is non-scientific, but to say research on values and meaning making can be based on the scientific method is a nonsense.

Yes, I've heard of blinding and even double blinding. But I don't see how blinding will prevent a researcher who is conducting an investigation concerning values from contaminating the data obtained with his/her own values when interpreting the information. Maybe you can explain the process? I'm not unfamiliar with the methodologies used in medical research, no. The point that you seem to be reluctant to understand is that not all medical research is conducted using the scientific method. Why can't you accept that the scientific method is not an appropraite method for investigating values? You seem to be under the impression that I'm launching some kind of attack on the scientific method, when all I'm saying in fact is that it is not a suitable method for all forms of research, social research in particular. Are you familiar with much literature on research methods? I recommend 'Doing postgraduate research' by Steven Potter. :o

What can I say? Like I mentioned earlier, you seem to be operating from some sort of armchair philosophy which attempts to describe the practise of science while remaining unfamiliar with its methodologies.

Yes you can. Why? Precisely because it's subjective.

If a post-graduate course seriously told you that subjective material cannot be studied with the scientific method, that program is crap and you should get out.

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

I provided you with a simple and straightforward example earlier which contradicts all that you've said above. A well-used and well-validated, entirely subjective, value-laden measurement in medical research is the self-perceived health status. It serves as a better predictor of mortality than any 'objective' measure we have available to us. How does it suddenly become "not science" to study this measure, while doing something much less useful, like measuring blood pressure, gets a free pass?

Contradicted all that I've said? My word Linda, you do seem lost now. It reinforces my point. All that's being demonstrated here is you cherry picking what the scientific method is and what it is not. I've no doubt your value laden study of the self-percieved health staus is a great predictor of mortality. I don't doubt that it's fantastic research either. But as I've told you, it's not true to the accepted scientific method if measures 'entirley subjective, value-laden' phenomenon. How can it measure subjective, value laden phenomenon scientifically Linda? Could you please provide an example? What criteria did the study use to measure the phenomenon? I think once we've all seen your example, everybody will agree that the part of the research which deals with values has not been conducted using the scientific method. Perhaps data was extracted that was presented or treated scientifically, but there is no way the data was obtained scientifically. The scientific method, as that is known to mean (I do hope you know what it means), does not embrace values or even acknowledge that they exist. It ignores them. You ask how does that study suddenly become 'not science'? It may be useful research to the scientific community Linda - yes, despite not having been being conducted using the scientific method. :catfight:

I understood your point. I was pointing out that it is irrelevant. An understanding of the demands of the scientific process does not inform you about the subject of that process.

You were not pointing out that my point was irrelevant. You misunderstood what I was saying about detachment and assumed objectivity, thinking incorrectly that my post pertained to researchers, when all along it was about process. You're now saying here that an understanding of the demands of the scientific process does not inform you about the subject of that process; I agree, but I don't see what your point is here. Clearly, an understanding of a process cannot inform you about a subject you've yet to study. So, what are you getting at? I know what I've been getting at all along: the scientific method is unsuitable for researching values, as the scientific method rejects them. The study you mentioned, as good as it is/was, can not have used the scientific method to study values, as the scientific method rejects them. Do you understand that? Again. The scientific method rejects vaules. Therefore it follows that the study you describe was not conducted using the scientific method, although it may have been presented in a way that is acceptable to scientific/medical communities. At no point have I denied that the world of science makes use of research which does not use the scientific method. The things that are good about that method are things such as consistency, reliability, repeatability. I don't think any of these would last very long if people suddenly changed the rules concerning what the scientific method is and is not. :D

I agree. But none of that is relevant to what I have been talking about. I'm not talking about the qualities of the process, I'm talking about the qualities of the subject.

Interesting that you agree with me that the scientific method demands objectivity and detachment, but then go on to say that values can be studied using the scientific method. :confused:

What can I say? Like I mentioned earlier, you seem to be operating from some sort of armchair philosophy which attempts to describe the practise of science while remaining unfamiliar with its methodologies.

Armchair philosophy? No Linda, not armchair. I have only attempted to describe the scientific method, which I am familiar with. It is you who apparently struggles to understand what it means and what its limitations are. :cool:

If a post-graduate course seriously told you that subjective material cannot be studied with the scientific method, that program is crap and you should get out.

Ok Linda, I'll leave both of the institutions that I am involved in postgraduate programmes with on the basis that you have now told me that they are crap. Thank you for dropping that bombshell. :(

Linda

;)

[fls]

Contradicted all that I've said? My word Linda, you do seem lost now. It reinforces my point. All that's being demonstrated here is you cherry picking what the scientific method is and what it is not. I've no doubt your value laden study of the self-percieved health staus is a great predictor of mortality. I don't doubt that it's fantastic research either. But as I've told you, it's not true to the accepted scientific method if measures 'entirley subjective, value-laden' phenomenon. How can it measure subjective, value laden phenomenon scientifically Linda? Could you please provide an example? What criteria did the study use to measure the phenomenon? I think once we've all seen your example, everybody will agree that the part of the research which deals with values has not been conducted using the scientific method. Perhaps data was extracted that was presented or treated scientifically, but there is no way the data was obtained scientifically. The scientific method, as that is known to mean (I do hope you know what it means), does not embrace values or even acknowledge that they exist. It ignores them. You ask how does that study suddenly become 'not science'? It may be useful research to the scientific community Linda - yes, despite not having been being conducted using the scientific method. :catfight:

You were not pointing out that my point was irrelevant. You misunderstood what I was saying about detachment and assumed objectivity, thinking incorrectly that my post pertained to researchers, when all along it was about process. You're now saying here that an understanding of the demands of the scientific process does not inform you about the subject of that process; I agree, but I don't see what your point is here. Clearly, an understanding of a process cannot inform you about a subject you've yet to study. So, what are you getting at? I know what I've been getting at all along: the scientific method is unsuitable for researching values, as the scientific method rejects them. The study you mentioned, as good as it is/was, can not have used the scientific method to study values, as the scientific method rejects them. Do you understand that? Again. The scientific method rejects vaules. Therefore it follows that the study you describe was not conducted using the scientific method, although it may have been presented in a way that is acceptable to scientific/medical communities. At no point have I denied that the world of science makes use of research which does not use the scientific method. The things that are good about that method are things such as consistency, reliability, repeatability. I don't think any of these would last very long if people suddenly changed the rules concerning what the scientific method is and is not. :D

Interesting that you agree with me that the scientific method demands objectivity and detachment, but then go on to say that values can be studied using the scientific method. :confused:

Armchair philosophy? No Linda, not armchair. I have only attempted to describe the scientific method, which I am familiar with. It is you who apparently struggles to understand what it means and what its limitations are. :cool:

Okay. So you've established that you think science cannot study values because when scientists study values they are not doing science. Of what use is this proscription when scientists do not make this distinction in practise?

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

Okay. So you've established that you think science cannot study values because when scientists study values they are not doing science. Of what use is this proscription when scientists do not make this distinction in practise?

Linda

No, I've established that when scientists study values they are not using the scientific method. Whether or not they are 'doing science' is not really for me to decide, is it? Perhaps it's up to you, I really don't know.

Anyway, I might change my mind about all of this when you present to the forum this evidence you have of values being studied using the scientific method. I'm not a closed book you know. Looking forward to reading over it, as it will be a first for me. :rolleyes:

[Mirrorglass]

I'm actually in agreement with you on this point, but it's basically due to my not-so-firmly held belief that there are no objective values of any type. All are arbitrary in their foundation, whether you are talking about meters or moral codes. We can only classify measurements are more or less subjective, with the far end of the less subjective scale being somewhat arbitrarily labeled objective.

Quite similar to what I believe. Imagine that. If this keeps up, soon we won't be getting into arguments at all. :p

Thanks for stating your belief. This seems quite reasonable to me. I personally would prefer such a society myself.
I can think of a few other alternatives, though I wouldn't prefer them personally. None of them are based on an absolute morality.

I would be interested of hearing about them, if you ever feel like putting your ideas in writing.


I appreciate the clarification. I have rather strong preferences myself regarding the level of civility and am, perhaps, overly sensitive to perceived insults.

I'm not a big fan of insults myself, but I've noticed that in some situations, being too polite can make the conversation stagnate. I've not yet come to a good solution to the dilemma. But if you do feel I've insulted you or another poster, I do appreciate you pointing it out. I can't promise I won't do it again, but I can at least give an apology.

Well, I think at that point it's time to politely agree-to-disagree.

Certainly, if you feel that way.

Just to clarify, though; by 'dismissing an argument' I did not refer to simply stating 'I disagree', but to making a more proactive statement, such as 'your idea doesn't work, and is useless'. (You've certainly never made such a statement, to my knowledge, but I've ran to essentially that in some past discussions with other people.)

I'm not so sure that it's fruitless and unnecessary. There can be a benefit in striving for an unattainable perfection. The benefit is from the striving, but the motivation for it may come from the unrealizable ideal. It's at least an arguable POV.

Ah, that is a different matter. I rather like philosophy and art, and I do enjoy the occasional existentialist pondering, essay on the nature of justice or Zen koan. I just don't think they're a good basis for solving problems in the material world.

I would hope so, but I'm not so certain. Game theory certainly brings some interesting perspectives to what sorts of societies we could expect to be stable.

I like to think of it as a Prisoner's Dilemma expanded to have six billion players. Admittedly, in reality there is the potential for subgames that make choice B the best option even in the long run, but I'd like to think with enough knowledge available, a stable equilibrium would be a society where most people co-operate to stop the minority that doesn't from doing much harm.

[Mirrorglass]

No, I've established that when scientists study values they are not using the scientific method. Whether or not they are 'doing science' is not really for me to decide, is it? Perhaps it's up to you, I really don't know.

Anyway, I might change my mind about all of this when you present to the forum this evidence you have of values being studied using the scientific method. I'm not a closed book you know. Looking forward to reading over it, as it will be a first for me. :rolleyes:

Where exactly do you get your definition of the scientific method? None of the definitions I know of make a strict demand of objectivity in the way you describe it. True, subjects should be studied objectively, but that does not mean the scientist can have no opinion on the subject; it merely means avoiding biased results. Studying emotions or values is not really that different from studying rocks. We already have preconceptions about both, but that doesn't mean we can't be objective in our study.

[westprog]

Where are you getting this stuff? Scientific methodologies include qualitative methods which study values (among other things). And even quantitative methods include value-laden measures. For example , the question "how is your general health?" is asking for a subjective value. It is an example of all those things that are claimed to make something non-science - choice, subjective, value, arbitrary, relative, etc. - yet nobody who's actually familiar with it claims that it's use is non-science. Science as it is actually practiced seems to have little to nothing to do with the claims made about it by the believers/apologists who are hanging out here.

Linda

It is precisely the vagueness, subjectivity and imprecision of questions like "how is your general health" that makes medicine so open to pseudo-science and error. Feynman is excellent in describing the difference between the hard and soft sciences in practice.

This is, to a great extent, unavoidable. Doctors do have to cope with how their patients feel. Such feelings do have diagnostic uses. They are nevertheless highly prone to error.

[westprog]

Where exactly do you get your definition of the scientific method? None of the definitions I know of make a strict demand of objectivity in the way you describe it. True, subjects should be studied objectively, but that does not mean the scientist can have no opinion on the subject; it merely means avoiding biased results. Studying emotions or values is not really that different from studying rocks. We already have preconceptions about both, but that doesn't mean we can't be objective in our study.

We can attempt to study emotions, but what we are actually studying is behaviour. The emotion is just the lable we give to the state of a person when he's behaving in a particular way, and describes himself as feeling in a particular way. We can't study how he actually feels - any more than we can study how the rock feels.

[Jupiter 7]

Where exactly do you get your definition of the scientific method? None of the definitions I know of make a strict demand of objectivity in the way you describe it. True, subjects should be studied objectively, but that does not mean the scientist can have no opinion on the subject; it merely means avoiding biased results. Studying emotions or values is not really that different from studying rocks. We already have preconceptions about both, but that doesn't mean we can't be objective in our study.

The scientific method is primarily interested in those aspects of natural events that can be formulated in terms of abstract laws. The internal human world in not susceptible to rational explanation because of its irrationality, unpredictability and the infinite number of permutations of possible thoughts, actions, motivations, outside influences, and so on - none of which the researcher can detach themselves from either, being human and having their own values, opinions, beliefs, etc - to allow them to be objective in rationalising somebody elses' values. Therein lies the problem. I think it's pretty simple, I don't know why it is difficult for some people to accept this. The scientific method is ill equipped to study human values. I don't actually have a problem with the scientific method, in fact I like it. :D

[fls]

No, I've established that when scientists study values they are not using the scientific method.

That wording works for me as well. "Okay. So you've established that you think science cannot study values because when scientists study values they cannot be using the scientific method."

So, of what use is your proscription when scientists do not make this distinction in practise?

Anyway, I might change my mind about all of this when you present to the forum this evidence you have of values being studied using the scientific method. I'm not a closed book you know. Looking forward to reading over it, as it will be a first for me. :rolleyes:

There are thousands of studies looking at self-perceived health status (one of the SF-36 questions (SF stands for Short Form, which comes out of the Medical Outcomes Study)). I suggest googling "self-perceived health" as a starting point. Another option is to read through the related material on the RAND site.

http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/mos/mos_core_36item.html

Linda

[westprog]

Okay. So you've established that you think science cannot study values because when scientists study values they are not doing science. Of what use is this proscription when scientists do not make this distinction in practise?

Linda

It tells us to be extremely wary of research that relies on subjective interpretation. We know that this doesn't only apply to "How do you feel today" type research. It applies to any research that requires a subjective view of what the results are. Medicine is awash with faulty research due to subjective interpretations. Physics less so, but it's always possible. The more subjectivity, the less science.

"a purely subjective phenomenon, with the scientists involved having recorded data that matched their expectations" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray)

[fls]

It is precisely the vagueness, subjectivity and imprecision of questions like "how is your general health" that makes medicine so open to pseudo-science and error.

Again, your statements have little to do with what happens in practise when it comes to medical research, for which I am grateful. I'd hate to forego the progress which has been made in favour of following your proscribed rules.

Linda

[fls]

It tells us to be extremely wary of research that relies on subjective interpretation.

That doesn't answer my question. Of course we have to develop methods which remove/moderate the effects of bias. It was the development of those methods which led us to discover just how much bias effects can creep into supposedly 'objective' research. But while scientists choose methodologies relevant to the subject of study, they are not arbitrarily excluding specific subjects from study by first choosing a methodology and looking at which subjects can be studied with that methodology.

Linda

[fls]

I think it's pretty simple, I don't know why it is difficult for some people to accept this.

The difficulty comes when one attempts to accept that you are familiar with the use of the scientific method in practise. As I said, you make statements which are nonsensical to scientists involved in studying these issues.

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

That wording works for me as well. "Okay. So you've established that you think science cannot study values because when scientists study values they cannot be using the scientific method."

So, of what use is your proscription when scientists do not make this distinction in practise?

Probably about as much use as your belief that the scientific method is a useful tool for investigating values. Can you clarify the rationale behind your questioning here? :confused:

There are thousands of studies looking at self-perceived health status (one of the SF-36 questions (SF stands for Short Form, which comes out of the Medical Outcomes Study)). I suggest googling "self-perceived health" as a starting point. Another option is to read through the related material on the RAND site.

http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/mos/mos_core_36item.html

Ok, just give me a minute whilst I go and check out thousands of studies to identify one which uses the scientific method to study values. :eek:

Come on Linda, please be serious for a second! :D I don't have time to rummage through all the crap on that site. If you have a link to an academic paper which uses the scientific method to study values then please provide it for all to see. Otherwise, I'm not going to scour through a website looking for papers which may or may not back up your claims. Do you have a link to a piece of research into human values which uses the scientific method or not?

[Jupiter 7]

The difficulty comes when one attempts to accept that you are familiar with the use of the scientific method in practise. As I said, you make statements which are nonsensical to scientists involved in studying these issues.

Linda

I'm making nonsensical statements? Ridiculous. I can tell you that you have made one enormous nonsensical claim, where you assert that the scientific method is a suitable means of investigating human values. Which of mine are nonsense? And whether or not you accept my familiarity with said methods is entirely up to you. I must admit I find it hard to believe that you were ever involved in postgradtuate research given your apparent shortsightedness, but I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. :rolleyes:

[Mirrorglass]

We can attempt to study emotions, but what we are actually studying is behaviour. The emotion is just the lable we give to the state of a person when he's behaving in a particular way, and describes himself as feeling in a particular way. We can't study how he actually feels - any more than we can study how the rock feels.

That's no different from all of science. We can attempt to study gravity, but what we are actually studying is the behaviour of objects with mass. We can attempt to study bacteria, but what we are actually studying are the figures created when those bacteria are glued to a piece of glass, doused in color and viewed through a lens. 'Gravity' and 'bacteria' are just labels we give to the way things work in particular situations.

The point is, emotions aren't special. Of course we can't study the thing in itself. We never can.

[Mirrorglass]

The scientific method is primarily interested in those aspects of natural events that can be formulated in terms of abstract laws. The internal human world in not susceptible to rational explanation because of its irrationality, unpredictability and the infinite number of permutations of possible thoughts, actions, motivations, outside influences, and so on - none of which the researcher can detach themselves from either, being human and having their own values, opinions, beliefs, etc - to allow them to be objective in rationalising somebody elses' values. Therein lies the problem. I think it's pretty simple, I don't know why it is difficult for some people to accept this. The scientific method is ill equipped to study human values. I don't actually have a problem with the scientific method, in fact I like it. :D

That's just silly. You believe the inner world of humans is irrational? Does that mean you don't believe it's governed by natural laws? Unpredictable? A coin flip is unpredictable. Does that mean we can't study probabilities? Endless number of permutations? Math never seemed to be troubled by those - why would psychology be?

And again, I would like to ask where you got your idea that 'The scientific method is primarily interested in those aspects of natural events that can be formulated in terms of abstract laws'. It seems rather clear you yourself are not a scientist. So where do you get this knowledge of the primary interests of the scientific method - knowledge I've never heard an actual practitioner of the scientific method mention?

And yes, researchers have their own values, opinions and beliefs. That doesn't render them incapable of studying emotions any more than it renders them incapable of studying rocks.

[fls]

Probably about as much use as your belief that the scientific method is a useful tool for investigating values. Can you clarify the rationale behind your questioning here? :confused:

I want to understand why you are insisting on this proscription.

Ok, just give me a minute whilst I go and check out thousands of studies to identify one which uses the scientific method to study values. :eek:

Come on Linda, please be serious for a second! :D I don't have time to rummage through all the crap on that site. If you have a link to an academic paper which uses the scientific method to study values then please provide it for all to see. Otherwise, I'm not going to scour through a website looking for papers which may or may not back up your claims. Do you have a link to a piece of research into human values which uses the scientific method or not?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044154.htm

The second link on my google search of "self-perceived health", since the first required a journal subscription to access.

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

That's just silly. You believe the inner world of humans is irrational? Does that mean you don't believe it's governed by natural laws? Unpredictable? A coin flip is unpredictable. Does that mean we can't study probabilities? Endless number of permutations? Math never seemed to be troubled by those - why would psychology be?

And again, I would like to ask where you got your idea that 'The scientific method is primarily interested in those aspects of natural events that can be formulated in terms of abstract laws'. It seems rather clear you yourself are not a scientist. So where do you get this knowledge of the primary interests of the scientific method - knowledge I've never heard an actual practitioner of the scientific method mention?

And yes, researchers have their own values, opinions and beliefs. That doesn't render them incapable of studying emotions any more than it renders them incapable of studying rocks.

Well if you're calling me silly, you're also calling Max Weber silly. He was also fundamentally at odds with people who argue for a morality based on science which, following the logic present in your post, is probably what you believe. That sentence where you quote me is actually a direct quote from Coser, 1977. So it's not my idea really. Perhaps you should ask Max Weber where these ideas come from?

I'm not a scientist. I'm a social scientist. Does that mean I'm not a real scientist? :D

[fls]

I'm making nonsensical statements? Ridiculous. I can tell you that you have made one enormous nonsensical claim, where you assert that the scientific method is a suitable means of investigating human values. Which of mine are nonsense? And whether or not you accept my familiarity with said methods is entirely up to you. I must admit I find it hard to believe that you were ever involved in postgradtuate research given your apparent shortsightedness, but I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. :rolleyes:

I think we are agreed that it is nonsensical to apply whatever your concept of the "scientific method" is to the study of human values. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us whether it is your concept of the "scientific method" which is nonsensical, or whether it is the consideration that human values can be studied using the "scientific method" which is nonsensical. Either way, it doesn't seem to matter, since the practise of scientific research carries on in the absence of the answer.

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044154.htm

The second link on my google search of "self-perceived health", since the first required a journal subscription to access.

Linda

That paper does indeed use the scientific method, and adopts a firmly positivist epistomology. But it is not a study of human values.

[fls]

That paper does indeed use the scientific method, and adopts a firmly positivist epistomology. But it is not a study of human values.

It uses "self-perceived health" which is nothing but a human value. There is nothing objective about the measure. Nor is it anything but a quality assigned only by the individual under consideration. "Is your health good?" is no different from asking "is this action good?"

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

I think we are agreed that it is nonsensical to apply whatever your concept of the "scientific method" is to the study of human values. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us whether it is your concept of the "scientific method" which is nonsensical, or whether it is the consideration that human values can be studied using the "scientific method" which is nonsensical. Either way, it doesn't seem to matter, since the practise of scientific research carries on in the absence of the answer.

Linda

I think we just fundamentally disagree, and that's ok. This discsussion between us ceased to be constructive a while ago, if it ever was at all. I appreciate getting to know your views, and it was interesting to debate this subject with you. I think it's clear that we are opposed in what we think and that further discussion on this subject will just see us going round in circles. Also, I apologise if I was rude.

Thanks for the discussion. :)

[Mirrorglass]

Well if you're calling me silly, you're also calling Max Weber silly. He was also fundamentally at odds with people who argue for a morality based on science which, following the logic present in your post, is probably what you believe. That sentence where you quote me is actually a direct quote from Coser, 1977. So it's not my idea really. Perhaps you should ask Max Weber where these ideas come from?

Good grief. Strawmen, arguments from authority, shifting the goalposts.. where do I start?

I didn't call you silly, I said your argument was silly. There's a pretty clear difference. Max Weber may or many not have agreed with you; I am not familiar with his work. However, since you say he was 'at odds with people who argue for a morality based on science', I doubt he would bolster your claims much.

I mean, good grief. I explained my views on morality and science on the previous page of this thread. You could have simply read them, yet instead you chose to assign to me this silly strawman of 'morality based on science'.

Which brings us to shifting the goalposts. The actual topic of discussion was whether science can study emotions, or values held by humans. It had nothing to do with 'morality based on science'. This is an attempt to shift the discussion into a different topic. And I think there is a whiff of ad hominem in there as well.

And lastly, some lame attempts at argument from authority. So you make a bald assertion that your views are actually the views of Max Weber. Well, first of all, it's your burden to show that, not mine to read Weber. Secondly, even if Weber agrees with you, it doesn't make you right. You need to show reasons for your ideas, not simply list famous people who have said something kind of similarish to you. And thirdly, from what you've said about Weber's writings (which I am unfortunately not familiar with) it seems rather likely to me that you either misunderstood them, or are deliberately trying to use them to mean something they don't.

The question we were discussing was where you get your idea of what the scientific method does or does not too. Is your answer that it is from a 1977 book by someone named Coser? (I would assume you mean Lewis Coser, but he didn't publish any books that year.) Perhaps you could provide a more accurate reference, and maybe even some reason why we should accept this Coser's opinion instead of those of most practicing scientists?


I'm not a scientist. I'm a social scientist. Does that mean I'm not a real scientist? :D

This argument isn't about you, Jupiter. Please stop trying to personalize it.

[Jupiter 7]

Good grief. Strawmen, arguments from authority, shifting the goalposts.. where do I start?

I didn't call you silly, I said your argument was silly. There's a pretty clear difference. Max Weber may or many not have agreed with you; I am not familiar with his work. However, since you say he was 'at odds with people who argue for a morality based on science', I doubt he would bolster your claims much.

I mean, good grief. I explained my views on morality and science on the previous page of this thread. You could have simply read them, yet instead you chose to assign to me this silly strawman of 'morality based on science'.

Which brings us to shifting the goalposts. The actual topic of discussion was whether science can study emotions, or values held by humans. It had nothing to do with 'morality based on science'. This is an attempt to shift the discussion into a different topic. And I think there is a whiff of ad hominem in there as well.

And lastly, some lame attempts at argument from authority. So you make a bald assertion that your views are actually the views of Max Weber. Well, first of all, it's your burden to show that, not mine to read Weber. Secondly, even if Weber agrees with you, it doesn't make you right. You need to show reasons for your ideas, not simply list famous people who have said something kind of similarish to you. And thirdly, from what you've said about Weber's writings (which I am unfortunately not familiar with) it seems rather likely to me that you either misunderstood them, or are deliberately trying to use them to mean something they don't.

The question we were discussing was where you get your idea of what the scientific method does or does not too. Is your answer that it is from a 1977 book by someone named Coser? (I would assume you mean Lewis Coser, but he didn't publish any books that year.) Perhaps you could provide a more accurate reference, and maybe even some reason why we should accept this Coser's opinion instead of those of most practicing scientists?



This argument isn't about you, Jupiter. Please stop trying to personalize it.

Well first of all, I'm unacquainted with the jargon here, so if you'd be so kind as to explain to me what a straw man is.

Now, you asked me in post no. 1542 where my arguments come from. When I tell you, you criticise me for using 'arguments from authority'. I mean, do you want to know where my thinking comes from or not? If you are asking me, I assume you do, therefore I tell you. If you don't want me to tell you, then please don't ask me where they come from. Just make up your mind please. You ask me, I tell you. It wasn't a 'lame attempt' at authority as you put it. I was simply answering your question, which makes that particular aspect of your post look foolish.

It wasn't a book by Coser, it was a publication in a journal. That does happen you know. But you don't want to know that, am I right? Because I'd just be doing that in an attempt to wield authority (rather than simply telling you where stuff comes from). And the whole point was not to provide academic references (I have no idea how you managed to come up with the idea that that's what I was attempting), but to tell you where my thinking comes from like you asked. If you want full and proper academic refernces, PM me and I'll be more than happy to oblige you. I had no idea they were required in a forum discussion.

Now the 'this argument isn't a about you, Jupiter. Please stop trying to personalise it' bit. :D

You see, mirrorglass, it is. You made it so when you said you doubted that I was a scientist. Why did you have to say that? If it is not about me, why mention that? The fact that I mentioned I am a social scientist has everything to do with what you posted about me not being a scientist. Can you see the link?

[Mirrorglass]

Well first of all, I'm unacquainted with the jargon here, so if you'd be so kind as to explain to me what a straw man is.

It means assigning on your opponent a position they do not hold. For example, you claimed that I promote 'morality based on science', and proceeded to argue against that position, instead of my actual arguments.

Now, you asked me in post no. 1542 where my arguments come from. When I tell you, you criticise me for using 'arguments from authority'. I mean, do you want to know where my thinking comes from or not? If you are asking me, I assume you do, therefore I tell you. If you don't want me to tell you, then please don't ask me where they come from. Just make up your mind please. You ask me, I tell you. It wasn't a 'lame attempt' at authority as you put it. I was simply answering your question, which makes that particular aspect of your post look foolish.

Fair enough; perhaps you truly just meant to answer my question. If so, in the future, I suggest that you leave off statements like 'If you're calling me silly, you're also calling Max Weber silly'. They rather make it look like you are attempting to borrow credibility from Weber, instead of just referring to him.

It wasn't a book by Coser, it was a publication in a journal. That does happen you know. But you don't want to know that, am I right? Because I'd just be doing that in an attempt to wield authority (rather than simply telling you where stuff comes from). And the whole point was not to provide academic references (I have no idea how you managed to come up with the idea that that's what I was attempting), but to tell you where my thinking comes from like you asked. If you want full and proper academic refernces, PM me and I'll be more than happy to oblige you. I had no idea they were required in a forum discussion.

All right. It is for this reason that it's customary to mention the name of the publication, and not just the surname of the author. It is very difficult for me to know what you are talking about otherwise.

To be clear, does the publication you refer to argue that the scientific method is only concerned with things that can be explained by abstract laws, and that those things do not include human emotions and values?

If so, then it is relevant, and you should link to the paper or at least provide it's name. It's quite all right to do that in this thread. There would still be the problem with most scientist not agreeing with the idea, but it would be a proper answer to my question.

Now the 'this argument isn't a about you, Jupiter. Please stop trying to personalise it' bit. :D

You see, mirrorglass, it is. You made it so when you said you doubted that I was a scientist. Why did you have to say that? If it is not about me, why mention that? The fact that I mentioned I am a social scientist has everything to do with what you posted about me not being a scientist. Can you see the link?

Perhaps you are right. I should have been more clear. Your comments make it rather clear that you have some unorthodox ideas about what is generally meant by 'the scientific method'. This suggested to me that you likely have no formal science training; however, admittedly it is possible you do. But you do not use what we commonly refer to as the scientific method. I am not quite certain what you mean by 'social scientist', but it seems possible that it is indeed something I would not call a 'scientist'.

But I'm willing to drop this part of the conversation if you are. It is not really particularly relevant to the issue, and I'll accept fault for starting the tangent.

[Jupiter 7]

It means assigning on your opponent a position they do not hold. For example, you claimed that I promote 'morality based on science', and proceeded to argue against that position, instead of my actual arguments.



Fair enough; perhaps you truly just meant to answer my question. If so, in the future, I suggest that you leave off statements like 'If you're calling me silly, you're also calling Max Weber silly'. They rather make it look like you are attempting to borrow credibility from Weber, instead of just referring to him.



All right. It is for this reason that it's customary to mention the name of the publication, and not just the surname of the author. It is very difficult for me to know what you are talking about otherwise.

To be clear, does the publication you refer to argue that the scientific method is only concerned with things that can be explained by abstract laws, and that those things do not include human emotions and values?

If so, then it is relevant, and you should link to the paper or at least provide it's name. It's quite all right to do that in this thread. There would still be the problem with most scientist not agreeing with the idea, but it would be a proper answer to my question.



Perhaps you are right. I should have been more clear. Your comments make it rather clear that you have some unorthodox ideas about what is generally meant by 'the scientific method'. This suggested to me that you likely have no formal science training; however, admittedly it is possible you do. But you do not use what we commonly refer to as the scientific method. I am not quite certain what you mean by 'social scientist', but it seems possible that it is indeed something I would not call a 'scientist'.

But I'm willing to drop this part of the conversation if you are. It is not really particularly relevant to the issue, and I'll accept fault for starting the tangent.

Thank you for this post. I know I was in the wrong in being rude at times and you are right, there was a certain amount of ad hominem which was uncessary, so I hope Linda will accept my apology too.

I will not continue this discussion on the live board as I feel there has been enough space dedicated to my unorthodox views, but what I will do is send both yourself and Linda a full explanation of my position through a private message, and if either of your feel you want to take it up with me here again after that, I will be more than happy to do so.

[tsig]

Thank you for this post. I know I was in the wrong in being rude at times and you are right, there was a certain amount of ad hominem which was uncessary, so I hope Linda will accept my apology too.

I will not continue this discussion on the live board as I feel there has been enough space dedicated to my unorthodox views, but what I will do is send both yourself and Linda a full explanation of my position through a private message, and if either of your feel you want to take it up with me here again after that, I will be more than happy to do so.

Start a thread and we'll all discuss it.:degrin:

[westprog]

It uses "self-perceived health" which is nothing but a human value. There is nothing objective about the measure. Nor is it anything but a quality assigned only by the individual under consideration. "Is your health good?" is no different from asking "is this action good?"

Linda

It's an objective measure of what people say when they are asked whether their health is good. It's not an objective measure of how they feel. In so far as it is scientific, it's measuring observed behaviour.

[Mister Agenda]

No, I've established that when scientists study values they are not using the scientific method. Whether or not they are 'doing science' is not really for me to decide, is it? Perhaps it's up to you, I really don't know.

Anyway, I might change my mind about all of this when you present to the forum this evidence you have of values being studied using the scientific method. I'm not a closed book you know. Looking forward to reading over it, as it will be a first for me. :rolleyes:

The eyeroll kind of spoils the pretense of open-mindedness, don't you think?

[Mister Agenda]

I'm making nonsensical statements? Ridiculous. I can tell you that you have made one enormous nonsensical claim, where you assert that the scientific method is a suitable means of investigating human values. Which of mine are nonsense? And whether or not you accept my familiarity with said methods is entirely up to you. I must admit I find it hard to believe that you were ever involved in postgradtuate research given your apparent shortsightedness, but I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. :rolleyes:

At least you're consistent in flagging your insincerity, thanks for that.

[Mister Agenda]

Now the 'this argument isn't a about you, Jupiter. Please stop trying to personalise it' bit. :D

You see, mirrorglass, it is. You made it so when you said you doubted that I was a scientist. Why did you have to say that? If it is not about me, why mention that? The fact that I mentioned I am a social scientist has everything to do with what you posted about me not being a scientist. Can you see the link?

I think when you said this:

I must admit I find it hard to believe that you were ever involved in postgradtuate research given your apparent shortsightedness, but I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

about Linda, you lost the credibility you need to criticize anyone else who might question your bonafides.

[fls]

It's an objective measure of what people say when they are asked whether their health is good. It's not an objective measure of how they feel. In so far as it is scientific, it's measuring observed behaviour.

It's even worse than that, since indications are that we do not even experience our own feelings directly. They are simply an echo, sent out by the brain after the fact, rather than the experience of the primary brain processes. So you've established that there is no such thing as a direct experience and there is no distinction between an objective and a subjective experience. Now what?

Linda

[Jupiter 7]

I think when you said this:

I must admit I find it hard to believe that you were ever involved in postgradtuate research given your apparent shortsightedness, but I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

about Linda, you lost the credibility you need to criticize anyone else who might question your bonafides.

And what about the credibility of a troll who comes in to a thread to re-start old arguments that have been put to bed amicably? :confused:

[Mister Agenda]

And what about the credibility of a troll who comes in to a thread to re-start old arguments that have been put to bed amicably? :confused:

It's hypocrisy that deprived you of credibility: you questioned someone else's credentials and immediately turned around and got offended when someone did the same to you. All I did was point it out. So I think my credibility is solid, and I don't see how my comment has anything to do with re-starting an argument you were having with someone else. Are you going back to saying nasty things to the people you were insulting previously because I've hurt your feelings? If so, I regret my post, but in my defense, I couldn't really be expected to anticipate that you would react like that. If not, good for you, and I might feel a little bit bad about my post if it turns out you're a decent sort after all who was just out of sorts because of bad traffic or something.

So you have my apologies in advance if it turns out your future behavior as a poster here indicates that I have you pegged wrong. It's my preference for that to be the case, I'd rather be wrong than for you to turn out to be as unpleasant as you first seemed.

[Beth]

It's even worse than that, since indications are that we do not even experience our own feelings directly. They are simply an echo, sent out by the brain after the fact, rather than the experience of the primary brain processes. So you've established that there is no such thing as a direct experience and there is no distinction between an objective and a subjective experience. Now what?

Linda

Now we quarrel about the relative distance of various points along the subjective/objective continuum. :p

Quite similar to what I believe. Imagine that. If this keeps up, soon we won't be getting into arguments at all. :p



I'll try to find something to pick a fight about. :D

I would be interested of hearing about them, if you ever feel like putting your ideas in writing.
No. I wasn't thinking of anything particularly interesting, just that there have been many different sorts of societies in the past. It seems like few of them were based on what the majority of people wanted.


Just to clarify, though; by 'dismissing an argument' I did not refer to simply stating 'I disagree', but to making a more proactive statement, such as 'your idea doesn't work, and is useless'. (You've certainly never made such a statement, to my knowledge, but I've ran to essentially that in some past discussions with other people.) Okay. Thanks for the clarification. That wasn't what I was picturing.



Ah, that is a different matter. I rather like philosophy and art, and I do enjoy the occasional existentialist pondering, essay on the nature of justice or Zen koan. I just don't think they're a good basis for solving problems in the material world.

I think I'll disagree with this. It seems to me that such pondering can help a person identify what the foundations for the actions ought to be. That can often help in making a choice about what direction to go looking for a solution. Besides, I need something to disagree with you about. :)

I like to think of it as a Prisoner's Dilemma expanded to have six billion players. Admittedly, in reality there is the potential for subgames that make choice B the best option even in the long run, but I'd like to think with enough knowledge available, a stable equilibrium would be a society where most people co-operate to stop the minority that doesn't from doing much harm.

Yes. I think such stable societies must exist. But I also value independence and privacy pretty highly. It's hard to maximize those simultaneously with security. At any rate, it's an interesting problem to think about.

[westprog]

It's even worse than that, since indications are that we do not even experience our own feelings directly. They are simply an echo, sent out by the brain after the fact, rather than the experience of the primary brain processes. So you've established that there is no such thing as a direct experience and there is no distinction between an objective and a subjective experience. Now what?

Linda

I think you've jumped a couple of chapters there. There's no such thing as an "objective experience". We experience things subjectively. How else could we do it? And when we experience them is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is that we do experience them.

[nvidiot]

Whether that is experience is a real reflection of the environment we perceive is a very important point I think.

[Beth]

Whether that is experience is a real reflection of the environment we perceive is a very important point I think.

Yes, but ultimately it's unknowable. We have no objective way to assess whether an experience is a 'real reflection of the environment we perceive' or not. We can only assess whether an experience is consistent with other people's reports of their experiences. We generally assume that an experience that is consistent across people is a 'real reflection', but that's an assumption we cannot verify and tells us nothing about unique or inconsistent experiences.

[paximperium]

I think you've jumped a couple of chapters there. There's no such thing as an "objective experience". We experience things subjectively. How else could we do it? And when we experience them is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is that we do experience them.
Actually fls point is THAT YOU DO NOT.
You don't even experience what you call "subjective experiences". Most of what you "feel" is nothing more than remnants of neurological processes.

I wonder how did find that out?

[paximperium]

<Snip> but that's an assumption we cannot verify and tells us nothing about unique or inconsistent experiences.
Oh but we can. We can conclude that it is "unique" or inconsistent.

[fls]

I think you've jumped a couple of chapters there. There's no such thing as an "objective experience". We experience things subjectively. How else could we do it? And when we experience them is somewhat beside the point. The important thing is that we do experience them.

Nope. If someone telling you how they feel is an objective experience, then your brain telling you how it feels (since indications are that we don't actually experience what our brain feels, only some sort of remnant (thanks Paximperium) sent to us to let us know what the brain felt) is also an objective experience. We only know what our brain tells us. We have no idea whether that reflects what is actually going on, especially since some of what it tells us seems to be false (e.g. the sensation of free-choice). Since both experiences are the same (me interrogating you and you interrogating your brain) in that neither one of us has direct experience of what is being reported, they are either both objective or both subjective. I will leave it up to you which label you want to apply.

Linda

[Paulhoff]

It is funny to me to hear people talking about themselves and their brain as being separate, when it fact they are one in the same.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Beth]

Yes, but ultimately it's unknowable. We have no objective way to assess whether an experience is a 'real reflection of the environment we perceive' or not. We can only assess whether an experience is consistent with other people's reports of their experiences. We generally assume that an experience that is consistent across people is a 'real reflection', but that's an assumption we cannot verify and tells us nothing about unique or inconsistent experiences.

Oh but we can. We can conclude that it is "unique" or inconsistent.

Since I wasn't clear, let me amend that last sentence. The assumption that consistent experiences are 'real reflections of our environment' tells us nothing about whether unique or inconsistent experiences can be considered to be 'real reflections of the environment we perceive'.

[paximperium]

Since I wasn't clear, let me amend that last sentence. The assumption that consistent experiences are 'real reflections of our environment' tells us nothing about whether unique or inconsistent experiences can be considered to be 'real reflections of the environment we perceive'.
I agree.

[fls]

It is funny to me to hear people talking about themselves and their brain as being separate, when it fact they are one in the same.

Paul

:) :) :)

I know. :) And I apologize for that. What I am really referring to is the entirety of brain processes vs. that small subset which represents a perception of self-awareness.

Linda

[westprog]

Since I wasn't clear, let me amend that last sentence. The assumption that consistent experiences are 'real reflections of our environment' tells us nothing about whether unique or inconsistent experiences can be considered to be 'real reflections of the environment we perceive'.

The methodology of science involves constructing a model of the world based on consistent, shareable experiences. Unshareable, inconsistent experiences are pruned away. That's why science inherently has problems dealing with them.

[fls]

The methodology of science involves constructing a model of the world based on consistent, shareable experiences. Unshareable, inconsistent experiences are pruned away. That's why science inherently has problems dealing with them.

Can you give some examples of "unshareable, inconsistent experiences"?

Linda

[Mirrorglass]

Can you give some examples of "unshareable, inconsistent experiences"?

Linda

Obviously he can't. They wouldn't be unshareable anymore.

[westprog]

Can you give some examples of "unshareable, inconsistent experiences"?

Linda

The exact sensation I felt when reading that post.

[AlBell]

A good example of the Non Overlapping Magisterium problem.

[fls]

The exact sensation I felt when reading that post.

Why is it unshareable and/or inconsistent? There are several ways we could determine that feeling and that feeling can be expected to appear under identical conditions.

Linda

[paximperium]

Why is it unshareable and/or inconsistent? There are several ways we could determine that feeling and that feeling can be expected to appear under identical conditions.
Especially when we stick him into that magic fMRI machine.

[paximperium]

A good example of the Non Overlapping Magisterium problem.:rolleyes:
It's Magisteria. The Magisterium is the authority of the catholic church to teach the word of god.

[AlBell]

Especially when we stick him into that magic fMRI machine.
Think the fMRI will have the same 'feeling'? I don't think so either.

And a science question you likely can answer.

How closely would the data from several individuals match as we probed (scientifically) some specific feeling? That is, how closely would overlays of the various datasets match? Visually obvious brain processing in the same areas?

:rolleyes:
It's Magisteria. The Magisterium is the authority of the catholic church to teach the word of god.
from Wiki.
In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to...the supposed conflict between science and religion."[73] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution."

I agree your usage conforms to the current dictionary definition.

I will add that I suspect my definition of not-amenable-to-science and Gould's differ. I include our subjectivity in the not-science part.

Hmm. I wonder if my Magisterium comment is what prompted you and paulhoff to conclude I look to the xian bible as moral authority? I suspect I use it no more than either of you, although where one places hot-button topics like abortion, stem-cell research, alternative lifestyles, and same-sex marriage could depend on theology of one sort or another.

I go back to my original question: in the US, how can one define morality other than by Constitutional and local Law if their preferred stance is contrary to majority opinion of any specific social more?

[paximperium]

Think the fMRI will have the same 'feeling'? I don't think so either. Nope. the fMRI sure as hell can never feel.
Why should it and why should I care?
Even you don't really "feel" what you claim to feel. All you're feeling is remnants of neurobiological computation.
We'll get to probe the mind, read it and even one day reprogram it.
Don't worry, we can only read words and images now.
We've also mapped some "feeling" like disgust, lust and a few other basic responses.

How closely would the data from several individuals match as we probed (scientifically) some specific feeling? That is, how closely would overlays of the various datasets match? Visually obvious brain processing in the same areas? Very very very good. We can read people who imagine a house or a spade. We can read people thinking of the words as well.

Not perfect...yet. But we're almost there. Intel and the Feds are busy funding this.

I go back to my original question: in the US, how can one define morality other than by Constitutional and local Law if their preferred stance is contrary to majority opinion of any specific social more?One can define it because that's what the founders of this country decided how it should be and the vast majority of the people who decide to live in this country has decided to follow these rules. How this can be changed is also written in there.

It's all subjective, remember? The Constitution and the law is a "living" and ever changing document. Unlike theist who believe that morality is inherent in everyone and somehow objective; the "evil" me believe that morality is subjective and heavily influenced by human drives and learned behavior. We can't do much about these drives, but we sure can do a lot about the learning part especially if these learned parts are informed by facts and science.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Edge.org put together a conference called The New Science of Morality (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html) (videos online). I found Jonathan Haidt’s and Paul Bloom’s talks to be especially interesting. It seems like the scientific study of values and morality is going forward quite nicely.

[westprog]

Why is it unshareable and/or inconsistent? There are several ways we could determine that feeling and that feeling can be expected to appear under identical conditions.

Linda

Scientifically, it's pretty well meaningless to discuss how I feel. It's quite possible to scientifically examine how I say that I feel, and to correlate that with how a lot of other people say that they feel.

You might claim that this applies to all scientific measurement - that we cannot access in any way what gravity, or magnetism really is. But we can access how we feel - by feeling it. We just can't access it scientifically.

[Paulhoff]

Scientifically, it's pretty well meaningless to discuss how I feel. It's quite possible to scientifically examine how I say that I feel, and to correlate that with how a lot of other people say that they feel.


Morals are the rules on how a society functions, some are good and some suck. Those morals (rules) can be compared to other societies on how well they work or not. Killing is pretty high on the list of morals in all societies has something that should not be done, but societies have still managed to kill people, as in wars started by kings and now governments.

To say one can't study and come to a conclusion on morals doesn't know how science works. First off, science tries to find out how things work knowing all the time that that understanding may change with time. It seems religious people think that is a weak part of science when in fact it is its strength.

Paul

:) :) :)

[fls]

Scientifically, it's pretty well meaningless to discuss how I feel. It's quite possible to scientifically examine how I say that I feel, and to correlate that with how a lot of other people say that they feel.

You might claim that this applies to all scientific measurement - that we cannot access in any way what gravity, or magnetism really is. But we can access how we feel - by feeling it. We just can't access it scientifically.

But this is like the subjective/objective thing. You claimed that some experiences are not amenable to scientific investigation because they are unshareable or inconsistent. Yet when you are asked to specify what makes then unshareable or inconsistent, you are unable to distinguish them from other experiences which are considered shareable and consistent and amenable to scientific investigation, just like your inability to distinguish between what you wanted to call subjective and objective experiences. You are creating barriers which serve a rhetorical purpose, but seem to disappear as soon as they are subject to scrutiny.

Linda