[MD] Scientism

Wed Oct 20 14:11:04 PDT 2010

Hi Ian,

Perhaps my syntax was not clear.  I agree with what you say, science
progresses on falsification then coalesces under agreement until the next
falsification.  Filling in the details requires cooperation and agreement on
the premises.  And now I understand your point about 100% falsification.
 Yes, there has to be agreement on the falsification.  If such a thing of
the science of morality is attempted, it will probably be based on what it
isn't than what it is.  It is easier to prove the negative in science than
support the positive.  Nothing is ever fully proven since there is always
the shadow of falsification.  Science casts such a shadow.

So, I think we are in agreement.  Are you applying morality to science when
you speak of a more enlightened kind?  Morality cannot be grown or regulated
through science, only depicted.  Such depiction is only good until it is
shown to be false, which will happen.

Mark

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hmmm Mark,
>
> I agree with what you say, but that's not what you say.
>
> You are making my point in your contradiction .... you say things like
> science cannot progress except by falsification (not otherwise) ....
> yet you also say science can be "an expression of morality" and that
> "finding things to agree on" is a part of science.
>
> Good science is more than falsification .... it needs the creative /
> synthetic / constructive / integrative / agreement too (I think you
> agree). All I had said was that a science that was 100% about
> falsification would find no place for / in morals.
>
> A more enlightened kind can.
> Ian
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:27 PM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > I would suggest to view science as an expression of morality and study it
> > that way.  My view of the progress of science is through a falsification
> > methodology.  I do not think it can progress otherwise.  The last thing
> we
> > want is every scientist agreeing on things.  There is that tendency in
> > science, and it often takes a maverick to break through.  Pragmatic
> > anti-skepticism sounds a bit like finding things to agree on, that is
> also a
> > part of science.
> >
> > What makes a claim scientific is indeed a source of controversy.  Many
> > scientists doing good work are disdained by others.  Much of the
> scientific
> > community is a club that one needs to join and play along with.
>  Government
> > support makes it difficult to work outside this system, we no longer have
> > the wealthy self sufficient type that wants to participate.  A problem
> with
> > scientific claims is that they over reach.  Predictions based on science
> are
> > most often wrong, so I wouldn't hang my hat on them.
> >
> > OK, back to seeing what the weather forecast is...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mark
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Ian Glendinning
> > <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Mark, Steve,
> >>
> >> If your view of science is 100% the skeptical / falsifiable kind then
> >> morality is no place for science. An alternative expression of the same
> >> thing is that IF science wants to have something to say about morality,
> >> then
> >> it (science) needs to adopt a more constructive view of life.
> >>
> >> (ie I'm with Steve on pragmatic anti-skepticism)
> >>
> >> The sad thing is that most science claims to be scientific - in the
> >> emprically falsifiable kinda way - whereas in practice most scientific
> >> theory and scientists are far from scientific. Neurotic.
> >>
> >> Ian
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:15 AM, 118 <ununoctiums at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Steven Peterson
> >> > <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi Mark,
> >> > >
> >> > > >> Steve:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm promoting pragmatic anti-skepticism. I'm saying that we not
> not
> >> be
> >> > > >> any more skeptical about moral truth than we are about scientific
> >> > > >> truth. Anyone objecting to moral truth as not resting on firm
> >> > > >> foundations similar to those of scientific claims can be shown
> that
> >> > > >> moral claims in fact do not suffer by comparison to scientific
> ones
> >> in
> >> > > >> terms of epistemic grounding. All the criticisms typically made
> for
> >> > > >> the possibility of moral knowledge can be shown to apply equally
> to
> >> > > >> scientific knowledge that we are not skeptical about.
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > Mark:
> >> > > >  Hi Steve,
> >> > > > In my experience, science is based on skepticism, asking
> questions,
> >> > > trying
> >> > > > to disprove.  It is important to be skeptical about scientific
> truths
> >> > > else
> >> > > > wise we do not advance.  The practical applications of scientific
> >> > methods
> >> > > > are meant to uncover truth, not define it.  I would go so far as
> to
> >> say
> >> > > that
> >> > > > science presents a false notion of truth.
> >> > >
> >> > > Steve:
> >> > > I think this notion is better put as falliblism which does not make
> us
> >> > > skeptics doubting the possiblity of knowledge or that we now know
> >> > > anything. It just means that we always keep in mind that we could be
> >> > > wrong about any of our beliefs in particular and are willing to be
> >> > > proven wrong by new evidence and arguments.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Mark
> >> > > > The foundations of science are not necessarily firm, they are
> >> accepted.
> >> > >  If
> >> > > > we are not skeptical about scientific knowledge it is due to the
> >> > profound
> >> > > > indoctrination and resulting faith in its dogma.  Such a thing is
> >> > termed
> >> > > > Scientism.  This is not railing against science per se, it is a
> >> > judgement
> >> > > > against its applications to areas where it does not belong.
> >> > >
> >> > > Steve:
> >> > > What are the areas where science does not belong in your view?
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Mark:  Morality
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Best,
> >> > > Steve
> >> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> > > Archives:
> >> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >> > >
> >> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> > Archives:
> >> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >> >
> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> >> Archives:
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >>
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>