Science vs. Philosophy

[Denny Crane]

I didn't want to derail the science quotes thread, but the notion that we should run society as science dictates is not a good one.

Science knows no morality or ethics.

Science will figure out the atom bomb, knowing it may well be used and even destroy humanity. It's worse when you consider eugenics and other things that would advance science but I think virtually all of us would find "wrong."

The whole thing about morality and ethics is that they help us define right and wrong.

So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy.

Philosophy tells us we should care for the poor, educate our children, tax the rich moreso than the poor, and so on.

Carry on.

 

[crowTrobot]

I didn't want to derail the science quotes thread, but the notion that we should run society as science dictates is not a good one.

science itself doesn't dictate anything. it's just a tool.

Science knows no morality or ethics.

neither does philosophy in any objective sense.

Science will figure out the atom bomb, knowing it may well be used and even destroy humanity.

you could say the question should humanity be destroyed or not is in the realm of philosophy (because the term "should" is too vague to have any scientific meaning). but we can empirically observe that humans (almost) universally do not wish humanity to be destroyed, and given that we equate nearly universal goals with what is objectively moral, we can empirically observe that it would be immoral to use the bomb because that's what might happen if we do.

So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy.

Philosophy tells us we should care for the poor, educate our children, tax the rich moreso than the poor, and so on.

philosophy doesn't tell us any of those things. the reason we do them is because they all have empirically objective benefits that help us meet established goals.

 

[Denny Crane]

Philosophy certainly determines what we perceive as right and wrong.

Science would clone human beings. Moral ethicists are preventing it.

You cannot empirically observe right and wrong. Those things are subject to change as peoples' views change.

 

[speeds]

I didn't want to derail the science quotes thread

All you post on this site is to railroad every thread into your wheelhouse.

 

[Denny Crane]

A philosopher might say "beware the military industrial complex."

A scientist might say "where do I apply for a grant?"

 

[crowTrobot]

Philosophy certainly determines what we perceive as right and wrong.

it absolutely does not. our sense of right and wrong emerges from evolution (and by extension emergent social convention/common sense). how we feel about the golden rule is not the result of some philosophical revelation.

Science would clone human beings.

science isn't something that "would" do anything. it's just a tool. as usual your issue is with the way certain scientists act, not with science itself.

You cannot empirically observe right and wrong.

you can't empirically observe something vague and undefined. if you define what right and wrong are you can certainly empirically observe them. the trouble with your argument here is philosophy doesn't define what we should and shouldn't do objectively any more than science does.

Those things are subject to change as peoples' views change.

their views aren't changing due to objective philosophical revelations.

 

[crowTrobot]

A philosopher might say "beware the military industrial complex."

if so he would be reaching that conclusion based on science-like (observational) reasoning.

 

[Denny Crane]

it absolutely does not. our sense of right and wrong emerges from evolution (and by extension emergent social convention/common sense). how we feel about the golden rule is not the result of some philosophical revelation.



science isn't something that "would" do anything. it's just a tool. as usual your issue is with the way certain scientists act, not with science itself.



you can't empirically observe something vague and undefined. if you define what right and wrong are you can certainly empirically observe them. the trouble with your argument here is philosophy doesn't define what we should and shouldn't do objectively any more than science does.



their views aren't changing due to objective philosophical revelations.

No need to be so defensive.

Science is just a tool, we agree. People follow where the science leads. Or we wouldn't be even talking or thinking about cloning human beings.

You cannot empirically observe right and wrong. You have lawyers, judges, and politicians (philosophers) who determine those things. It is not so black and white, either. It's wrong to kill, but it's a capital crime to murder a cop or plan the murder while it's no crime at all for a soldier to shoot an enemy on the field of combat.

There are many many times the number of philosophical "experiments" with hypotheses, observations, etc., than there are scientific ones.

We observe they make laws against smoking pot yet people do, and we can count how many violate that law. That has NOTHING to do with science. That's one example. And that does suggest why peoples' views change - it's a silly law that nobody wants to obey.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics.

(Science isn't any part of it, but philosophy is)

 

[tlongII]

I fail to see what your point is Denny.

 

[Denny Crane]

I fail to see what your point is Denny.

In the OP:


So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy.

 

[tlongII]

In the OP:


So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy.

Who has said they should rule by science? I'm not aware of anyone that says that.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm in no way picking on Obama, but this article in Wired discusses a lot of the rhetoric I've seen in my lifetime.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/scintegrity/

In no uncertain terms, Obama signaled that the federal government would be guided by science, not the other way around. In offering a repudiation of the previous administration, he also promised a new era of transparency.

...

[President Obama and this Congress] have already made the choice that they are going to fully support science and invest in science to the solve the big problems — health care, science, and education," said Dr. Stacie Propst, vice president of science policy and outreach at Research!America. "They are going to focus on a science-based economy for us."

...

The memo also required that "the selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the candidate’s knowledge, credentials, experience and integrity."

...

However, some observers said that it’s not always easy to separate politics from science, especially on hot-button issues like climate change or stem cell research.

...

With most bioethicists "on the record" about the hot-button issues of cloning, embryonic stem cell research, genetic modification and euthanasia, it could be difficult to staff a committee in a balanced way. Particularly with regard to embryonic-stem-cell research, where the Obama administration has a clear-cut position, they could run into political trouble.

 

[Further]

Science gathers information. Everything else is molested by our ego.

 

[Further]

Science gathers information. Everything else is molested by our ego.

With all the quoting going on, i wanted to try and come up with one of my own. Go ahead, use it, love it. But always remember to say it's a quote from GOD.

 

[crowTrobot]

You cannot empirically observe right and wrong.

you can after you define what is and isn't. the point is we are NOT defining what is right and wrong collectively through philosophy. individuals certainly do that, but whatever collective sense of objective morality exists emerges as a matter of practicality concerning shared goals and common sense, which in turn emerge from evolution.

There are many many times the number of philosophical "experiments" with hypotheses, observations, etc., than there are scientific ones.

proposing a hypothesis and supporting its validity with observation IS science.

We observe they make laws against smoking pot yet people do, and we can count how many violate that law. That has NOTHING to do with science.

that's overtly science. philosophy would be the study of what we should or shouldn't do independent of the observation of what people want.

we don't think it would be immoral to euthanize unproductive elderly because it has been determined by philosophical analysis to be "evil" (whatever that means). we think it would be immoral to do that because almost all of us want to live as long as possible.

 

[tlongII]

I was at my bank today; there was a short line.
There was just one lady in front of me, an Asian lady who was trying to exchange yen for dollars.
It was obvious she was a little irritated . . . She asked the teller,
"Why it change? Yesterday, I get two hunat dolla of yen.
Today I only get hunat eighty? Why it change?"
The teller shrugged his shoulders and said, "Fluctuations."
The Asian lady says, "Fluc you white people too"

 

[Denny Crane]

you can after you define what is and isn't. the point is we are NOT defining what is right and wrong collectively through philosophy. individuals certainly do that, but whatever collective sense of objective morality exists emerges as a matter of practicality concerning shared goals and common sense, which in turn emerge from evolution.



proposing a hypothesis and supporting its validity with observation IS science.



that's overtly science. philosophy would be the study of what we should or shouldn't do independent of the observation of what people want.

we don't think it would be immoral to euthanize unproductive elderly because it has been determined by philosophical analysis to be "evil" (whatever that means). we think it would be immoral to do that because almost all of us want to live as long as possible.

We are defining what is right and wrong through philosophy. Natural Rights are not a scientific thing. Slavery is not. Taxation is not. Republican form of government s not. Progressivism is not. Socialism is not. Conservatism is not. Yet those philosophies define right and wrong. It evolves from gay is bad to gay is perfectly acceptable.

The populace, by consensus determines society's morals. It's a vote kind of thing. Not science.

Hypothesis and observation is not solely science's. it s not science to give a tax break for charitable donations and that the observed donations increase. It is a moral thing to encourage donations, oil exploration, feeding the poor, etc.

We do euthanize the elderly. Science decides a person is too old to qualify for a heart transplant.

Other societies, namely China, force sterilization or abortion for he good of the community. Our morals say it is evil, theirs say it is ultimately humane.

The will to live longer isn't science either. It is a foundation of philosophies.

 

[tlongII]

We are defining what is right and wrong through philosophy. Natural Rights are not a scientific thing. Slavery is not. Taxation is not. Republican form of government s not. Progressivism is not. Socialism is not. Conservatism is not. Yet those philosophies define right and wrong. It evolves from gay is bad to gay is perfectly acceptable.

The populace, by consensus determines society's morals. It's a vote kind of thing. Not science.

Hypothesis and observation is not solely science's. it s not science to give a tax break for charitable donations and that the observed donations increase. It is a moral thing to encourage donations, oil exploration, feeding the poor, etc.

We do euthanize the elderly. Science decides a person is too old to qualify for a heart transplant.

Other societies, namely China, force sterilization or abortion for he good of the community. Our morals say it is evil, theirs say it is ultimately humane.

The will to live longer isn't science either. It is a foundation of philosophies.

False.

 

[Denny Crane]

False.

No.

You can't even get on a waiting list without a scientist (doctor) making the application. The group that denies these requests are scientists, too.

Edit: as opposed, say, to first come / first served or a lottery.

 

[crowTrobot]

We are defining what is right and wrong through philosophy. Natural Rights are not a scientific thing. Slavery is not. Taxation is not. Republican form of government s not. Progressivism is not. Socialism is not. Conservatism is not. Yet those philosophies define right and wrong.

slavery is the only thing you listed that would be a matter of emergent moral consensus, and there are socially beneficial reasons for that.

obviously there's nothing close to a consensus on political views so I have no idea how those would relate. how does philosophy show us collectively which political views are "right"?

it s not science to give a tax break for charitable donations and that the observed donations increase.

what? it's science to observe that they do. it's science to observe that charitable donations lead to both individual and collective happiness and social harmony (if they do) and therefor deem the practice moral.

It is a moral thing to encourage donations, oil exploration, feeding the poor, etc.

where a "moral" consensus exists (all of those things are contentious on one level or another) we think we should do those things because they are objectively beneficial on some level, not because we are considering philosophical views of what is right and wrong. obviously FNC does not constantly harp on too much government welfare because of the philosophies of Jesus. they do so because (correct or not) they postulate too much welfare is objectively and empirically observably harmful to society as a whole.

Science decides a person is too old to qualify for a heart transplant.

omg again. also double standard in how you're categorizing.

The will to live longer isn't science either. It is a foundation of philosophies.

the will to live longer is a matter of evolution, not philosophy.

whether it's right or wrong that humans live longer is a philosophical question (because it's too vague to be scientific), but that's not an issue very many people really care about. they instinctively want to live longer and just go with that. what we DO ask is what should we do to live longer, which is overtly a scientific question.

 

[crowTrobot]

You can't even get on a waiting list without a scientist (doctor) making the application.

an MD is not a scientist.

The group that denies these requests are scientists, too.

i'm not familiar with this process so can't comment, but I don't see how this is relevant anyway. if there aren't enough donor hearts to go around obviously there has to be some sort of criteria for refusal. is your issue with specifics of the criteria?

 

[Denny Crane]

Of course a doctor (MD) is a scientist. Most aren't sequestered in some laboratory somewhere doing experimental work is all. It sure looks like science when you tell them you've been running a fever, they do a blood test and make a diagnosis from the results of that test. EDIT: they sure study a lot of biology and math and technology (among other things) that are science.

In any case, there is something of a battle going on between "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies. The influence of both is there to see. The ideologies aren't science based - they're philosophies. One would tax and spend, while the other (theoretically) wouldn't. No science to it. To one group, taxing is evil (bad, whatever), to the other NOT taxing is evil. Natural rights cannot be hypothesized, experimented upon, and observed. They are metaphysical things, which absolutely separates them from science.

You confuse scientific method with science. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/home.aspx - Department of Philosophy, Logic, and Scientific Method. Logic is another issue, but it's also not science.

As for criteria for refusal of hearts for transplant... The doctors have done enough transplants on patients and recorded the effective results of each and know to a % (odds) certainty if the patient would benefit in the "long" run. Do I have an issue with the specifics? Not exactly, but it is a question of morality, no? Someone is making the moral judgment that one year of extra life for an older person is worth less than two or more years of extra life for somebody else. It would suck to be that older person - we all want to live longer, right!

 

[crowTrobot]

Of course a doctor (MD) is a scientist.

in the sense that everyone does science, yes. categorically, no.

In any case, there is something of a battle going on between "liberal" and "conservative" ideologies. The influence of both is there to see. The ideologies aren't science based - they're philosophies. One would tax and spend, while the other (theoretically) wouldn't. No science to it. To one group, taxing is evil (bad, whatever), to the other NOT taxing is evil.

obviously there's a lot of personal philosophy that colors individual politics. the question is how do we collectively determine what the level of taxation *should* be using philosophy? isn't this what you are advocating we do in the OP?

how do we collectively determine whether aborting a zygote is moral or immoral using philosophy?

Natural rights cannot be hypothesized, experimented upon, and observed. They are metaphysical things, which absolutely separates them from science.

the bare concept of intrinsic entitlement is too vague to be scientific. if you specify WHY you are intrinsically entitled (god-given or whatever) it makes the claim at least in principal subject to observation.

You confuse scientific method with science.

not sure what that means, but in any case I don't believe it's accurate to portray any kind of data collecting to support a premise as philosophy.

As for criteria for refusal of hearts for transplant... The doctors have done enough transplants on patients and recorded the effective results of each and know to a % (odds) certainty if the patient would benefit in the "long" run. Do I have an issue with the specifics? Not exactly, but it is a question of morality, no? Someone is making the moral judgment that one year of extra life for an older person is worth less than two or more years of extra life for somebody else. It would suck to be that older person - we all want to live longer, right!

if someone is arbitrarily deciding "worth" that would certainly be philosophy at work, not science. you seem to be faulting the wrong tool in this case.

 

[magnifier661]

I didn't want to derail the science quotes thread, but the notion that we should run society as science dictates is not a good one.

Science knows no morality or ethics.

Science will figure out the atom bomb, knowing it may well be used and even destroy humanity. It's worse when you consider eugenics and other things that would advance science but I think virtually all of us would find "wrong."

The whole thing about morality and ethics is that they help us define right and wrong.

So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy.

Philosophy tells us we should care for the poor, educate our children, tax the rich moreso than the poor, and so on.

Carry on.

Very good and I agree 100%. And there are many types of philosophies too. Find the one that suits your needs and use them.

 

[Denny Crane]

in the sense that everyone does science, yes. categorically, no.



obviously there's a lot of personal philosophy that colors individual politics. the question is how do we collectively determine what the level of taxation *should* be using philosophy? isn't this what you are advocating we do in the OP?

how do we collectively determine whether aborting a zygote is moral or immoral using philosophy?



the bare concept of intrinsic entitlement is too vague to be scientific. if you specify WHY you are intrinsically entitled (god-given or whatever) it makes the claim at least in principal subject to observation.



not sure what that means, but in any case I don't believe it's accurate to portray any kind of data collecting to support a premise as philosophy.



if someone is arbitrarily deciding "worth" that would certainly be philosophy at work, not science. you seem to be faulting the wrong tool in this case.

We don't determine the level of taxation scientifically, that's for sure.

What's even worse is they make hypotheses like "obamacare will drive down health insurance costs" then implement it and it doesn't drive down health insurance costs. Not only won't they learn from that mistake, they'll double down on it trying to make it work because of philosophy - the IDEA that health care should be universal. That IDEA being morally right to about 40% of the people.

We collectively determine abortion is legal or not through the law. Not through science. In fact, the scientific reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is tortured at best. However, they reasoned and came up with an IDEA that there is a certain RIGHT (intrinsic entitlement!) to privacy in the bill of rights.

You don't have to specify WHY you have natural rights. You just do. They are metaphysical things. Concepts. Ideas. Things that have no foundation in or requirement for science. We all share the experience to know they exist. We can't measure it with our senses or any testing equipment; and human testimony is very weak evidence. Yet it is widely accepted as truth.

You still confuse scientific method with science proper. Any kind of data collecting isn't science. Any kind of hypothesis testing isn't science either. Some testing is, some isn't.

They're using "science" as the tool to determine moral judgment. Like I said, it's unfair to the older person who has his life cut short. I was pretty explicit about (some of) the odds and observations they made to come to their morality.

And an MD absolutely is a scientist. If the two aspirin don't work on your headache, go back and get something stronger. That's a scientific experiment in action.

 

[crowTrobot]

Very good and I agree 100%. And there are many types of philosophies too. Find the one that suits your needs and use them.

"but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy"

finding a personal philosophy that suits your needs is a different thing than government trying to use philosophy to determine what laws should be.

 

[magnifier661]

"but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy"

finding a personal philosophy that suits your needs is a different thing than government trying to use philosophy to determine what laws should be.

A lawyer and judge are forms of philosophy. That's why the death penalty is practiced in some states and not in others. That's why some people get more state tax than others. That's why certain laws are passed and some aren't. The judges and people residing in those territories make the rules and use their own philosophy to decide what is right and wrong.

Your argument with Denny is not valid, IMO.

 

[crowTrobot]

We don't determine the level of taxation scientifically, that's for sure.

whether we do or not is irrelevant. in the OP you're saying we're better off if we don't - and I don't get why.

What's even worse is they make hypotheses like "obamacare will drive down health insurance costs" then implement it and it doesn't drive down health insurance costs. Not only won't they learn from that mistake, they'll double down on it trying to make it work because of philosophy - the IDEA that health care should be universal. That IDEA being morally right to about 40% of the people.

seems like you're completely contradicting your OP here - pointing out that the Obama administration is basing policy too much on philosophy to the detriment of society when they should be more empirically minded.

We collectively determine abortion is legal or not through the law.

lost me.

You don't have to specify WHY you have natural rights. You just do. They are metaphysical things. Concepts. Ideas. Things that have no foundation in or requirement for science. We all share the experience to know they exist. We can't measure it with our senses or any testing equipment; and human testimony is very weak evidence. Yet it is widely accepted as truth.

the bare notion of an intrinsic "right" is a completely and utterly vague concept. it's no mystery why humans don't want to be murdered, would rather be free than slaves etc. that's just evolution. what we WANT for ourselves colors what we feel we should be entitled to. nothing wrong with that, but that is not the same thing as saying we are born with an intrinsic right to those things. without external context that statement simply has no real meaning.

They're using "science" as the tool to determine moral judgment. Like I said, it's unfair to the older person who has his life cut short. I was pretty explicit about (some of) the odds and observations they made to come to their morality.

in order to do that they'd first have to specify the (philosophical) rule that more life is better than less life, no matter who's life it is. they're using science to carry out a philosophical judgment. philosophy is determining morality in this case, not science.

And an MD absolutely is a scientist. If the two aspirin don't work on your headache, go back and get something stronger. That's a scientific experiment in action.

we all do this type of stuff every day so you're just saying we're all scientists.

 

[crowTrobot]

A lawyer and judge are forms of philosophy. That's why the death penalty is practiced in some states and not in others. That's why some people get more state tax than others. That's why certain laws are passed and some aren't. The judges and people residing in those territories make the rules and use their own philosophy to decide what is right and wrong.

Your argument with Denny is not valid, IMO.

Denny made a claim about the way things should be, not the way they are.

I'm pointing out that the things we as a collective tend to agree on are driven by science. The things we don't agree on are driven by philosophy. Why is philosophy a better course?