Is science inherently atheistic?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by joseph8th

Yes, regardless of whether one subscribes to Gould's Non-overlapping Magesteria, and here's why:

Science is not a person, and only people can hold beliefs.

So religion is atheistic?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human affairs. It keeps being put forward and it keeps being knocked back.

Nobody has claimed that the study of human choice is outside the realm of science. They have said that the act of making a choice is not part of science.

If the study and the act are the same, then astrology is science. We can certainly study the reasons that people believe in astrology, and what they are doing when they practice it. And yet, people mostly agree that astrology isn't science.

This isn't such a difficult distinction to make, but for some reason the supposed promoters of reason are unwilling to make the little step to understand it.

You seem to view decision making as some sort of magical process. What happens in that moment when you decide to hit the submit button?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And you genuinely can't tell the difference between rewording a question into a more obtuse form to avoid an answer and asking a new question you're gonna have a lot of trouble understanding a lot more then just science.

It doesn't matter what anyone tells you you're just gonna run it through your bad fortune cookie cliche filter and lob it back.

Jeez when you walk into the store and ask the greeter where the clothes are and they answer "Aisle 7" do you just turn around and ask them where the apparel is at?

Yes, yes you do and when he answers you ask where's the suits, he answers, you ask where's the three piece suits,he answers, you ask where's the brown three piece suits he gets mad and you win.

[JoeBentley]

You know I do wonder how the Navel Gazers would function if they were force to explain something in a purely literal language, something like Lojban or whatnot, where they were forced to actually make points and arguments instead of silly pointless hairsplitting of the language.

All the so called "Philosophical" arguments seem predicated on the false assumption that if the English language, which is a horribly inaccurate cobbled together language at best, has two different words these two different words must be describing different concept. Even the simplest concepts can be worded dozens of different ways. Harping on these differences isn't... well it isn't anything. It's a time waster, a stalling tactic, and pretentious way of just trying to avert attention from hollow empty hijacks.

Trying to crowbar a discussion difference between Phil Collins and the lead singer of Genesis into conversations doesn't make one insightful.

[laca]

Originally Posted by westprog

This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human affairs. It keeps being put forward and it keeps being knocked back.

Nobody has claimed that the study of human choice is outside the realm of science. They have said that the act of making a choice is not part of science.

Need I quote your post? That is absolutely not what you claimed. You claimed that no decision could be made based on science alone. "Based on science" is not even is the same ballpark as "part of science". All this shifting of the goalposts and strawmanning makes you look real desperate.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

Originally Posted by IanS

Who brought up this phrase "is-ought problem"? Ditto the phrase "fact-value distinction", where did notions like that come from? Nobody I ever met in science would ever talk in terms like that. And I don't recall the science side here raising any such issues in this thread?

These sound to me like complete mumbo-jumbo terms, designed only to take the discussion off into an inaccurate subjective realm of increasingly vague and meaningless language.

All that the science side is doing in this thread, is accepting that the methods of science (inc. maths) genuinely succeed in solving real problems and explaining real events & processes in this universe. The philosophical people here were arguing that that science does not do that, because they claimed science was not detecting "reality". That was the argument.

That has nothing to do with anything anyone has been saying in this thread, and particularly in dealing with the fact/value or is/ought issue.

If you genuinely can't understand the difference between what actually is, and what you want, then you are going to have a lot of trouble understanding science. If you can't tell the difference between the objective facts about objects, and the value you place on them, you will live a life where your subjective impressions get a terrible hammering from reality.

If you think that the boundaries between science and personal preference are subjective, vague and meaningless, then you don't understand how science works. Science deals with objective, measurable facts.

The only way that science can solve real problems is if somebody makes the decision as to what outcome he wants. Until he does so, science is impotent. It is a tool to be used to achieve the aims which have to be decided on the basis of preference.

Failure to understand this will lead to frustration and misunderstanding.

The rest of the tirade doesn't seem to relate to this issue at all. It seems to be philosophical musings about the nature of reality, coupled with statements about the pointlessness of philosophical musings on the nature of reality.

You say it has “ nothing to do with what anyone here has been saying in this thread "? well, that’s strange because in that very sentence I was actually quoting directly what had been said by mijo. And explaining directly why his sentences, like yours, seem to be nothing more that an attempt to “win” a word argument by subjecting everyone to obscurantist mumbo-jumbo such as “is-ought problem” and “fact-value problems”, plus someone’s idea of deciding if “blue is good”. Frankly that sort of thing is a complete and deliberate waste of everyone’s time.

As for the rest of your reply - I think we already established that you really have no credentials at all for telling people here what science is, and yet you keep making absolute statements about it as if you were an expert, as distinct from being apparently so in-expert that you actually have no experience or qualifications in science at all.

Science and scientists decide for themselves what science is and what it should do, without needing you to tell us that we don’t know what we are doing, thanks very much. And just to be completely clear on why your inexpert opinion does not count - science and scientists do not use the sort of “philosophy” of mumbo-jumbo semantics that you are posting in this thread, and the reason they don’t use it is because it’s completely devoid of any actual value and is of zero use in actually discovering or explaining anything.


So, can you stop wasting everyone's time now and produce the evidence ... Where is it? Where is your evidence to show that science does not measure "reality" ? (tenth time of asking? )

[IanS]

Originally Posted by westprog

Nobody has claimed that the study of human choice is outside the realm of science. They have said that the act of making a choice is not part of science.

If the study and the act are the same, then astrology is science. We can certainly study the reasons that people believe in astrology, and what they are doing when they practice it. And yet, people mostly agree that astrology isn't science.

I'm sure I'm going to regret indulging you in the following, but OK, lets take your example of astrology as described above, and try to see what exactly you are saying -

- firstly you are accepting that " science can study human choice ". But you are then making a clear distinction between the human act of making a choice, and what you then call " the act of making that choice " ... that's exactly what you say in your first sentence above.

Well, what is the difference between those two "acts" of making the choice?

You start with the idea of agreeing that science can indeed study " human choice ", but that itself is an "act", is it not? The person "acts" to make that choice, right? If there was no such "act" then by definition nothing could happen and no choice could be made, right?

OK, there's much more in that point, but I think that first and quite obvious point is enough for now. So moving on to your second sentence about astrology ...

... you agree " we can use science to study why people believe in astrology ", OK, fine we all agree with that ... but then you say we also conclude that the astrology which those people study is " not science " ... OK, well the first thing there is that you have introduced a whopping inaccuracy arising from your own semantic reliance on mere language ... that first and obvious error is this - it's a mistake to say that "astrology is not science" ... that's like saying "this brick is not science" ... what you should have said was something like " astrology is not very scientifically rigorous in it's methods " ... however, more importantly ...

... astrology is certainly open to scientific scrutiny to decide whether or not it is correct in it's claims .... so the bottom line there is - you already agreed that " we can use science to study why people believe the claims of astrology ", but your subsequent conclusion is then wrong because you should have concluded that " science can of course also be used to study the claims of astrology " ....

... IOW, contrary to your claim, science can in fact very easily be used to study both parts of that issue - it can most certainly study the persons beliefs in astrology (as you agreed), but it can very obviously also study the subject of astrology itself (contrary to what you were trying to say ).

Just as an overview to all that - what was happening in your post above, and what you an mijo and others have been doing all throughout this thread (and what in fact seems to be almost the entire basis of so-called “philosophy”), is deliberately confusing yourself, and thereby intentionally trying to confuse everyone else, by your mistaken and inaccurate use of words.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by IanS

OK, well the first thing is - we do not actually have literally "nothing". That is not physically possible. That's the first part of the explanation.

Instead what we have is - all time, space and particles converted into another form. That form is a set of primordial energy fields which are composed of different components with different defining characteristics, one of which is (say) magnitude and direction of the local field ...

... overall, across the sum of all the interacting fields, the outcome of the interactions sums to precisely zero, because on average all the various components are acting in opposing senses and cancelling one another entirely.

That process of instantaneous interactions and instantaneous cancellations is taking place a huge number of times even on the Plank scale. However, the individual fluctuations are random in time, in magnitude, in direction, in sign etc. So, some fluctuations will be small and short lived, and others will be much larger and longer lived.

That process continues, with consequent instantaneous momentary production of space-time, which is then almost instantly quenched back to zero again by the opposing forces of the surrounding fields.

However, at some point, when a fluctuation reaches a critical size, it is no longer possible for the surrounding fields to quench that instant formation of space and time within a critical period of something around the Plank time. When that happens the production of space and time turns into an unstoppble chain reaction between all fields components, and the result is then a sudden massive inflation of space and time leading to the Big Bang.

What you presumably want to say is something like - " well where did these fluctuations come form in the first place? ". But the answer is that they did not "come from" anywhere - there was no space or time for them to be anywhere else. They are not waiting anywhere!

What is happening is that random QM-level fluctuation of the field is an inescapable property of the field itself. It's why the individual components are in fact "something, rather than nothing". It's why we do not literally ever have "nothing".

Instead what approximates to "nothing", and what we should have properly regarded as "nothing", is that primordial set of mutually cancelling energy fields, in which the individual components must obey the Uncertainty Principle, and by which they appear from the overall fields as instantaneous so-called "Vacuum Fluctuations".

Once you have these Vacuum level fluctuations, it become inescapable that at some stage the random fluctuations become too large to quench, and hence the Inflation described by Allan Guth then inevitably appears as stage one of the Big Bang proper.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I am usually too busy at weekends to post much.

Interesting, so the theory proposes the existence of a "set of mutually canceling energy fields", out of or in which the vacuum fluctuations occur resulting in space, time and matter.

So is energy existing prior to matter?
Presumably matter goes hand in hand with space and time in a three way relationship. None can exist without the other.

What actually is energy in this situation, is it the disturbance in a unified field of some sort?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Sorry for the delay in replying, I am usually too busy at weekends to post much.

Interesting, so the theory proposes the existence of a "set of mutually canceling energy fields", out of or in which the vacuum fluctuations occur resulting in space, time and matter.

So is energy existing prior to matter?
Presumably matter goes hand in hand with space and time in a three way relationship. None can exist without the other.

What actually is energy in this situation, is it the disturbance in a unified field of some sort?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ctuations.html

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Respond to a multi-paragraph post with nothing but a pithy but intellectually empty question to a point that's already been addressed. Navel Gazing in a nutshell.

Your question is meaningless and not the "gotcha" you've set it up as. Color is simply the perception of different wavelengths of life and "best" is a meaningless criteria outside of context.

But to answer your question, it depends on brain chemistry and situation.

No "gotcha" intended or offered. Personal valuations are one such area that science is not designed to address, nor is it a tool suitable for best exploration or addressment of these types of individual and societal concerns and considerations. Not that it cannot be done, much like the fact that you can use a pipe-wrench to pound nails. Science processes are very powerful tools when properly applied but they have limitations and when distorted and abused they produce results that are not reliable or simply not of value.

[punshhh]

Originally Posted by dafydd

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ctuations.html

Nice, I already knew that.

What is the quantum vacuum Dafydd?

Is that something that exists independently of spacetime and matter?

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Science doesn't pass moral judgment on the entire human race.

Science doesn't do judgements, but people do. Science is about observing, measuring and categorization according to characteristic.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by punshhh

Nice, I already knew that.

What is the quantum vacuum Dafydd?

Is that something that exists independently of spacetime and matter?

No. Part and parcel of it. Do your unknown unknown gods exist outside of spacetime and matter? At least we know that spacetime and matter are real. Can you give me the mystical explanation of quantum fluctuations?

[mijopaalmc]

I'm sorry to see this thread fall by the wayside, because, despite the apparent fixity of the participants in their positions, I think that this is an interesting topic.

That said, I feel that I am not succeeding in being as civil as this topic merits, so I'm not going to post for a while until I can express myself in a more amicable manner.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Science doesn't do judgements, but people do. Science is about observing, measuring and categorization according to characteristic.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

You missed some.

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

I'm sorry to see this thread fall by the wayside, because, despite the apparent fixity of the participants in their positions, I think that this is an interesting topic.

Agreed

Quote:

That said, I feel that I am not succeeding in being as civil as this topic merits, so I'm not going to post for a while until I can express myself in a more amicable manner.

Deep breaths (they don't call it "inspiration" without a reason), patience and empathy. Return when you can.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Trakar

Deep breaths (they don't call it "inspiration" without a reason), patience and empathy. Return when you can.

Take this as you will, I have psychiatric disorders which emotional regulation difficult, so it that much tougher for me to take advice like the above.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's not so interesting to discuss the issues when all you do is repeat your arguments, Mijo, without addressing the issues people bring up.

For example, you have yet to describe what this process is one uses in philosophy. You merely say science doesn't do [X].

You continue to refer to one aspect of how science contributes to emotional decisions by calling science merely descriptive. In reality it is prescriptive once a dependent goal is added to the question.

If you want to have a discussion, how about addressing these issues instead of ignoring them?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's not so interesting to discuss the issues when all you do is repeat your arguments, Mijo, without addressing the issues people bring up.

For example, you have yet to describe what this process is one uses in philosophy. You merely say science doesn't do [X].

You continue to refer to one aspect of how science contributes to emotional decisions by calling science merely descriptive. In reality it is prescriptive once a dependent goal is added to the question.

If you want to have a discussion, how about addressing these issues instead of ignoring them?

Yes, science is descriptive - but if you add a prescriptive element, it becomes prescriptive. Of course, what science tells you to do is entirely dependent on the dependent goal chosen.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, science is descriptive - but if you add a prescriptive element, it becomes prescriptive. Of course, what science tells you to do is entirely dependent on the dependent goal chosen.

What's the difference between choosing a goal and choosing what to do?

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by westprog

Yes, science is descriptive - but if you add a prescriptive element, it becomes prescriptive. Of course, what science tells you to do is entirely dependent on the dependent goal chosen.

And I thought biologists avoided teleological explanations.

[mijopaalmc]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's not so interesting to discuss the issues when all you do is repeat your arguments, Mijo, without addressing the issues people bring up.

Well, I repeat myself because you don't actually address the arguments that I have put forward.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

For example, you have yet to describe what this process is one uses in philosophy. You merely say science doesn't do [X].

You do realize that what philosophy has to say about ethics and how philosophy examines ethical problems is irrelevant to whether and how science can answer those same question?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You continue to refer to one aspect of how science contributes to emotional decisions by calling science merely descriptive. In reality it is prescriptive once a dependent goal is added to the question.

Introducing a goal isn't science. Or are we going to have to talk about teleology in biology yet again?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If you want to have a discussion, how about addressing these issues instead of ignoring them?

Because what you have actually done is touch on an old question in the field of ethics and then cast it aside as if it weren't important to constructing system of ethics from scientific facts.

Basically, the is-ought problem is a metaethical problem first introduced by David Hume (who, as I recall, made essential contributions to the philosophy of science insofar as he established some basic precepts of empiricism) that meaning of ethical propositions and their relationship to other types propositions. Specifically, the is-ought problem questions how an ethical proposition can logically follow from two non-ethical propositions.

For instance I can "reason":

P1:I found a $100 bill
P2:It does not belong to me
C :I should return the $100 bill to its original owner

or

P1:I found a $100 bill
P2:I want the $100 bill
C :I should not return the $100 bill to its original owner

The first line of reasoning is (I think) the line of reasoning that most people would think is ethical, while the second is not. However, it is not clear at all how either of the above conclusions follow from their respective premises. In fact, each conclusion probably rests on its own hidden premise, such as:


P1:I found a $100 bill.
P2:It does not belong to me.
P3:I should not take possession of things that do not belong to me.
C :I should return the $100 bill to its original owner.

or

P1:I found a $100 bill.
P2:I want the $100 bill.
P3:I should do whatever I want.
C :I should not return the $100 bill to its original owner.

The reasoner, however, has in each case introduced a "should" into the line of reasoning that leads to the reasoner's conclusion. Therefore, the ethical conclusion follows not only from the factual propositions (P1 and P2) but also from the ethical proposition (P3), making the procession of the conclusion from the facts of the matter (i.e., the found $100 bill, the reasoner's lack of previous possession of the $100 dollar and/or desire for the $100 bill) unclear.

Neuroscience can describe the brain states of people who are making the decision between a course of action in which they lose possession of the $100 bill and the course of action in which they maintain possession of the $100 bill and correlate each brain state with the person's perception of the ethics of the scenario. However, how one uses the information so gained to make decision themselves does not seem to follow directly from the fact that some people enter the brain state of having made an ethical decision when they decide to return the $100 and that some people enter the brain state of having made an ethical decision when they don't return the $100 bill.

[AvalonXQ]

The analogy I've presented in this discussion before is science as a GPS.

It is incredibly useful to figure out how to get somewhere, but only after you tell it where you want to go.

Science can help you figure out how to achieve your goals. It can even tell you what secondary goals to aim for in light of primary goals. It can even tell you what primary goals you're likely to want, and what goals others want.

But the impetus to pursue the goal, the decision to tell the GPS "go there", always comes from you, not from science.

This is likely what Einstein wrote when he said that "science without religion is lame". Science can only tell you "is"; you have to get your "ought" elsewhere.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Neuroscience can describe the brain states of people who are making the decision between a course of action in which they lose possession of the $100 bill and the course of action in which they maintain possession of the $100 bill and correlate each brain state with the person's perception of the ethics of the scenario. However, how one uses the information so gained to make decision themselves does not seem to follow directly from the fact that some people enter the brain state of having made an ethical decision when they decide to return the $100 and that some people enter the brain state of having made an ethical decision when they don't return the $100 bill.

I suppose that if neuroscience were to show that brains which took one course of action were damaged in some way, and those that took the other were bursting with health, one could produce some kind of prescriptive rule along the lines of wanting to be healthy. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that any such thing is true.

[laca]

Originally Posted by westprog

I suppose that if neuroscience were to show that brains which took one course of action were damaged in some way, and those that took the other were bursting with health, one could produce some kind of prescriptive rule along the lines of wanting to be healthy. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that any such thing is true.

Would you just stop with the strawman already? Science doesn't need to provide you with wants or desires, nothing can.

Wants and desires are nothing more than one's brainstate. There is no 'should'. Different people want different things. Science makes you more successful in acquiring food and it also makes you a more efficient serial killer. You just have to deal with it.

[JoeBentley]

One cell creature. "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early multi-cell creature. "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early vertebrate "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early fish "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early amphibian "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early reptile "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early mammal "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early primate "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Early man "Eat, excrete, reproduce."
Modern Man "What it all about? Why are we here? What's the meaning of life? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What if I'm just a brain in a jar? Who put the bop in the bop-sha-bop-a-dop? What does the color blue taste like? What's beyond the event horizon of the formless?"

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Take this as you will, I have psychiatric disorders which emotional regulation difficult, so it that much tougher for me to take advice like the above.

I think we all have difficulty in these areas; I can respect that it may be much more difficult for some of us. I wish you well and hope to see you around again soon!

[westprog]

Originally Posted by laca

Would you just stop with the strawman already? Science doesn't need to provide you with wants or desires, nothing can.

Wants and desires are nothing more than one's brainstate. There is no 'should'. Different people want different things. Science makes you more successful in acquiring food and it also makes you a more efficient serial killer. You just have to deal with it.

If this is such a strawman, why has it been so difficult to just accept? This particular issue - whether science can provide everything needed for making decisions - has been argued about for some time. The argument seems to be between the people saying that science alone is insufficient for making decisions, and the people saying that science alone is insufficient for making decisions, but we shouldn't talk about it.

If there's an element of decision making that isn't part of science, clearly it has to be resolved unscientifically. Obviously we use our brains for this, and it will be part of our brainstate. This has been stated over and over as if it gets us anywhere. "I'm going to make a decision now, using my brain. It's just chemicals you know, nothing magical. Look, here I am, making a decision." And over and over it is repeated that there's no magic involved, nothing "special", it's just totally comprehensible physical reactions. Which of course gets us absolutely nowhere. The decision has to be made, and the basis cannot be science (as has finally been admitted, even by SG). The question is then - on what basis are decisions to be made. There was one attempt at this earlier on. Someone - I misremember who - said that it was just a matter of deciding whether one wanted to be part of society or not. Once this decision was made it was science all the way. While I question whether the entirety of human activity can be reduced to the state of a single binary digit, at least this addressed the question which has been avoided so strenuously for so long.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by westprog

If this is such a strawman, why has it been so difficult to just accept?

Do you not know what a strawman is? Why would something being a strawman argument make it easier to accept?

Quote:

This particular issue - whether science can provide everything needed for making decisions - has been argued about for some time.

Plenty of things get "argued about" long after they've been settled by any reasonable definition.

Quote:

The argument seems to be between the people saying that science alone is insufficient for making decisions, and the people saying that science alone is insufficient for making decisions, but we shouldn't talk about it.

No the argument is you and others making a pointless and meaningless distinction to a question that has already been answered.

Modern neuroscience explains the decision making process very well. Well enough to accept that while some details in it might not be hashed out we've got the gist of it pretty well in grasp.

Your pointless hair splitting over "Why" and "How" is just semantics, the old "Reality/Truth" nonsense you delight in revealing in.

Quote:

If there's an element of decision making that isn't part of science...

There isn't.

Quote:

...clearly it has to be resolved unscientifically.

There' s nothing to resolve. Science understands randomness.

Quote:

Obviously we use our brains for this, and it will be part of our brainstate. This has been stated over and over as if it gets us anywhere. "I'm going to make a decision now, using my brain. It's just chemicals you know, nothing magical. Look, here I am, making a decision." And over and over it is repeated that there's no magic involved, nothing "special", it's just totally comprehensible physical reactions.

And yet you fail to grasp it.

Quote:

Which of course gets us absolutely nowhere.

No it just doesn't get us where you want to go.

Quote:

The decision has to be made, and the basis cannot be science (as has finally been admitted, even by SG). The question is then - on what basis are decisions to be made. There was one attempt at this earlier on. Someone - I misremember who - said that it was just a matter of deciding whether one wanted to be part of society or not. Once this decision was made it was science all the way. While I question whether the entirety of human activity can be reduced to the state of a single binary digit, at least this addressed the question which has been avoided so strenuously for so long.

We're not avoiding the question. We're dismissing it as meaningless and without value or substance.

I'm sorry we can't answer your meaningless semantic hair splitting to your satisfaction. I can't answer "How does the color blue smell?" either.

[mijopaalmc]

Straw man is two words.

[laca]

Originally Posted by westprog

If this is such a strawman, why has it been so difficult to just accept? This particular issue - whether science can provide everything needed for making decisions - has been argued about for some time.

Because every time you feel that your bubble is bursting, you turn to "but science cannot tell you what to prefer". Nobody claimed that it always could. But your claim was that no decision could be made based on science alone.

Did you have at least once a case where you had to make a decision but had no preference whatsoever? How about when you were able to make a decision in spite of your initial preference? If you have no preference, it's entirely possible to make the decision based on science alone. If your preference does not influence the decision, the decision is being made independently of the preference, perhaps based on science alone.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by westprog

I suppose that if neuroscience were to show that brains which took one course of action were damaged in some way, and those that took the other were bursting with health, one could produce some kind of prescriptive rule along the lines of wanting to be healthy. However, I'm not aware of any evidence that any such thing is true.

Really, you never heard of Phineas Gage?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by laca

If you have no preference, it's entirely possible to make the decision based on science alone.

How?

Can you describe the situation by which science alone, which is descriptive but not motivational, could be the basis for a decision? I'll admit that I just don't see it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

How?

Can you describe the situation by which science alone, which is descriptive but not motivational, could be the basis for a decision? I'll admit that I just don't see it.

Again with the shortsighted, "only descriptive". How did we get to the Moon? Science described it and we decided to go therefore science was not part of the decision process?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by laca

Because every time you feel that your bubble is bursting, you turn to "but science cannot tell you what to prefer". Nobody claimed that it always could. But your claim was that no decision could be made based on science alone.

And that is still true.

Quote:

Did you have at least once a case where you had to make a decision but had no preference whatsoever? How about when you were able to make a decision in spite of your initial preference? If you have no preference, it's entirely possible to make the decision based on science alone. If your preference does not influence the decision, the decision is being made independently of the preference, perhaps based on science alone.

I'd love to see an example of that.

For a start, if it's a decision, as opposed to something that just happens, then there is necessarily volition. We don't need a preference for our hearts to keep beating. That's going to happen regardless of our decision. However, for going down to the shops, a decision must be made. There must be a preference for going down to the shops, or not going down to the shops. How is it possible to go to the shops and not have a preference for going to the shops? Whatever we end up doing, we had a preference for doing. Otherwise we wouldn't have done it.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Again with the shortsighted, "only descriptive". How did we get to the Moon? Science described it and we decided to go therefore science was not part of the decision process?

"based on science alone" =/= "based on science plus other stuff"

If you want to go to the moon, science will help you get there, but science itself won't tell you to go to the moon. It won't, without some other motivating force, make the moon (or anything else) your goal.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by mijopaalmc

Straw man is two words.

If your world view is rigid and inflexible, perhaps.

There is a hidden link in this post, think outside the box to find it.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

If your world view is rigid and inflexible, perhaps.

There is a hidden link in this post, think outside the box to find it.

Clever.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Again with the shortsighted, "only descriptive". How did we get to the Moon? Science described it and we decided to go therefore science was not part of the decision process?

Oh dear me. We've been repeating and repeating that you can't make a decision using science alone. How can you interpret that as saying that no decision ever involves using science?

Going to the Moon is a classic example of making a decision based on a combination of scientific and entirely unscientific criteria.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Really, you never heard of Phineas Gage?

I know of the case, of course. However, to take a single incident where a previously pleasant man becomes unpleasant due to brain damage has to be set against the many thousands of people who suffered deliberate brain damage from having their cerbellum gouged out with an ice pick in order to supposedly improve their behaviour.