[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --



> Thanks for the quotes about the scientific method.
> The only problem I have with it is that the claim that
> a theory to be scientific must be falsifiable isn't a
> theory that is falsifiable. In other words, science
> can't prove the validity of it's methodology using its
> own criteria of proof.  Shades of Godel's
> Incompleteness Theorem. :-)

I think you must distinguish the principle of the method from the
methodology itself.  The principle is a rule that is applied before the
method ("pre-methodological").  It is the logical stipulation that whatever
evidence may be observed by the scientific investigator is subject to
invalidation by new evidence in the future.  By qualifying objective data in
this manner, the results can be duplicated universally, ad infinitum, until
(or unless) they are proved wrong.  I don't see this as invalidating the
scientific approach, particularly as knowledge derived from other sources -- 
dogmatic notions, intuitional reasoning, or cultural adages -- are not
repeatedly tested against objective evidence and, therefore, cannot be
proved.

> Not to beat a dead horse, but I would point out that the
> difference in premises reflects a difference in values with
> each of us believing the premise we begin with and rely
> on is better than the other's. In fact, I can think of no
> argument, philosophical or otherwise, which doesn't have
> it's roots in conflicting values.

Yes, this is very true.  So is the fact that it is Value, rather than the
premises, that we're all seeking.  Without the value of a given proposition,
it's just a dialectical exercise that has no practical or philosophical use.
For example, to me the aphorism "some things are better than others" has no
practical or philosophical value.  It may have poetic value as a descriptive
cliche, like saying "we live and learn" or "what goes around comes around",
but it doesn't add to our conception of reality.

> To me this indicates the pervasiveness of values in reality
> from which it is only a small step to a validation of the MOQ.

I disagree of course.  We will never see the MOQ objectively validated.
Like music, art, and religion, we may gain some satisfaction or comfort from
such theories.  And personal contentment is a value in itself.  But I think
the ultimate value for human beings is the kind of awareness that is called
an 'epiphany' -- realizing a cosmic truth.

Like the realization Archimedes expressed as he ran stark naked through the
streets of ancient Syracuse crying, "Ureka!  I have found it!"

Regards,
Ham