[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Platt Holden]

Ham -
  
P: 
> > 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. :-)

H: 
> 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.

Are you saying that "knowledge derived from other sources" that can't be proven 
objectively using the scientific method may still be valid?

> > 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.

I suggest that some cliches like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" raise 
deep philosophical problems. As for "adding to our conception of reality," the 
premise is that reality is somehow different than our conception of it -- 
raising other deep philosophical problems. 

> > 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!"

An apt description of how I felt after reading "Lila."  And listening to 
Bronfman play Rachmaninov's Third. Not that I compare myself to Archimedes :-)

Morally yours,
Platt