[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hi again, Platt --

I don't think I answered your question about (what I consider to be)
objective evidence in my most recent post.  Actually, I'm quite sure my
understanding of scientific objectivity is no different than yours, but
here's a basic definition of the methodology that I found on an educational
site:

"The Scientific Method, is a term denoting the principles that guide
scientific research and
experimentation, and also the philosophic bases of those principles.
Whereas philosophy in general is concerned with the why of things, science
occupies itself with the how of things, in a rigorous manner.  Definitions
of scientific method use such ideas as objectivity of approach and
acceptability of the results.  Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe
things as they are, without falsifying observations to accord with some
preconceived view. Acceptability is the degree to which observations and
experiments can be reproduced.

"The Scientific Method involves the interplay of inductive reasoning
(reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general
hypotheses and theories) and deductive reasoning (reasoning from theories to
account for specific experimental results).  By such reasoning processes,
science attempts to develop the broad laws-such as Isaac Newton's law of
gravitation-that become part of our understanding of the natural world."

Numerical values represent the scientist's most reliable evidence because
they are not open to interpretation and can be measured accurately.  My old
friend the professor in Boiling Springs, has urged me to elicit the help of
a physicist or mathematician who could put my theory into some kind of
quantitative formula.  Although Wittgenstein, Russell, and some semioticists
have managed to express their philosophies mathematically, this simply isn't
feasible for a philosophy based on an absolute source.  It certainly
wouldn't the readability, and what would it prove?

This excellent essay from The Online Gadfly titled "Is Science Just Another
Dogma?"  distinguishes objective evidence from non-objective (unfalsifiable)
evidence:

"Scientific assertions are Fallible and Falsifiable.  For any statement
whatever in the body of science, we know what it would be like for that
statement to be false.  (I exclude "formal" statements: e.g., definitions,
logical rules and tautologies - a technical point which I can't elaborate
here).  It is thus possible, in principle (i.e., through the wildest
imagination), to describe a refutation of a scientific claim. In other
words, scientific statements, hypotheses and theories are falsifiable - not
"false," but falsifiable.  The distinction is crucial.

"To put it another way, for an hypothesis, prediction or confirmation to
have scientific meaning, one must be prepared to say, "expect to find
such-and-such empirical conditions in the world, to the exclusion of other
describable conditions."  If you find these conditions, your statement has
been proven true of this particular "real nature," and not some "fanciful
nature."  For example, Galileo determined that a free-falling object falls
at a distance of d = ½ gt2 (with "d" for distance, "t" for time, and "g" for
a gravitational constant at the Earth's surface).  Not 1/4g or 1/3g, but
1/2g.  And not time cubed, or time to the 2.5 power, but time squared.  In
other words, that sample equation describes one sort of nature to the
exclusion of an  infinitude of other "natures" described by different
formulas.  But experimentation and observation has proven that Galileo's
formula applies to the "nature" we live in.  In short, the free-fall formula
is falsifiable.  We can easily describe how it might be false, but have
determined experimentally that it is true.

"Similarly, in Eddington's famous 1919 eclipse experiment, Einstein's theory
of relativity predicted that star near the eclipse would appear in a
precisely defined location, and not in any other location in the night sky
(a falsification).  And sure enough, it appeared where predicted by the
relativity theory.  Confirmation!

"In contrast, dogmas give us unfalsifiable assertions.  Once in a debate
with an evangelical minister, I asked: "Why should I believe that the Bible
is the inerrant truth, and that I must believe in Jesus Christ to be saved?"
He replied, "just you wait - when you die and face your maker, then you will
find out."  Of course, that challenge was utterly unfalsifiable to anyone
alive, which is to say, to anyone at all.  Similarly, economic dogmas, which
are "theory rich," have an "explanation" (after the fact) for every and any
developments in the national economy. What they cannot do is describe a turn
in the economy that would disprove their dogma.  In short, unfalsifiable
assertions, because they describe every possible world, describe nothing
unique about the world we live in, which is to say that they "describe"
nothing at all.

"An important implication of the falsifiability rule, is what Charles Peirce
called "Falliblism." Because every scientific statement is falsifiable, we
must be forever open to the possibility (however remote) that some new
observation or experiment will prove it wrong.  The "falliblist" says, in
effect, that "while I have strong beliefs, I am forever prepared to change
these beliefs if confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary."

Also, I omitted a "not" in the second paragraph of my last note which might
have resulted in confusion.  This paragraph should read as follows:

> Idealistic freedom alludes to a desired goal toward which
> society is supposedly moving.  It is not what I would call
> "individual freedom".  I see Individual Freedom as the
> "value" of human individuality (autonomy) which is intrinsic
> to man.  That is, it's a 'given' attribute of human existence.
> And, while I agree that it is very high on the scale of perceived
> values, to accept your definition of it as "moral" would be
> misleading.  Morality is NOT something given to us; it is a
> code of societal ethics or justice which we mortals create
> in order to preserve our civilization.

By taking into account your view of the universe (which you have articulated
well), I can offer explanations that bear on the major differences.  I'm now
trying to get these differences "out in the open", and feel more comfortable
with the way this discussion is proceeding.  I hope this new strategy
doesn't make me seem difficult or you uncomfortable.

Best regards,
Ham