Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The objectivity of science, and other matters.

Ok, I kind of see where you're coming from. However, no amount of love for my partner, or coke up my nose will stop the apple accelerating down from the tree branch at 9.8m/s/s. It is certainly possible for someone to hold a view about the natural world that contradicts the observed evidence, but over time, the truth wills out.
 
If you are saying that moral objectivism must be false because of there is so much disagreement about moral issues, then I could suggest, that there is equally protracted disagreement in other fields, e.g. historical studies. Not sure what difference that makes though.
 
Well, nobody is claiming that history is objective, or a science for that matter :)
 
118118 said:
:confused:

Erm, well, I mean that what is the basis of the claim that history is not objective.

:)
Click to expand...
Christ, I'd have thought that one was self evident. History is written by the winners etc.
"Stalin was a tyrant"
"Stalin was a hero of the nation"

Both true, depending on which historian you ask
 
So, you say its because people disagree. I'm diregarding the fact that you are using value terms - which I would assume you think cannot be objective anyway.
 
Being rude, ought not to make your argument any more convincing.

I would genuinely like a reasonable debate on the consistency and proof of naturalism, as phenomenology is a non-naturalist philosophy (though Merleau-Ponty, I think, may have had something to say on that).

The objective world is something new, built up upon the world that we share experience of (this is a butchering of Husserl). I see a nasty duality here, can you explain it away so it doesn't bother me anymore?

What is even the argument for naturalism?

:)
 
This is the point in the discussion where I have to go and look things up on wikipedia to make sure I get the words right :rolleyes: :) - I may be some time, or I may get bored...
 
118118 said:
The link with science is that; some people would say, that naturalism is false if morality is objective.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how intensely politicised this debate is.

By far the noisiest anti-naturalist faction - particularly in the United States - far from arguing that "that naturalism is false if morality is objective" is in fact proposing that there must be "objective morality" and therefore that it is their religious duty to deny "naturalism". Go to the creationist Discovery Institute and follow links or look up William A Dembski and Michael Behe.
 
Politics :rolleyes:
Dietzgen, I think, has something intersting to say on morality, well kind of, its not exactly anything new. He thinks that proletarian morality is importrant, and that we are progressing towards higher morality, morality is progressing, and progression is moral, a dialectical relationship.
 
118118 said:
Politics :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Whatever else, what I described makes the debate harder to have.

People (particularly) in the US will feel the need to look to the affiliations of anyone pronouncing on the subect of "naturalism" to make an asessment as to whether they are arguing honestly, or to defend some other prior position (such as the one I outlined).
 
No seriously, I edited out the personal where I'm coming from stuff...

I am not religous. The objective morality idea is just intution really. Tbh I think that God might be able to be proved, but I see no use for it in anyone's life, and would like to be a undoubting atheist
.
I'm interested in phenomenology for my HPS degree and am fairly certain that the guy has not been teaching naturalised philosophy (He sides with Goodman that necessity exists as a relation between universals). I also study psychology, and am unsure how the hell consciousness is suppsoed to arise - again this is just my intuition.

Hope I pass :rolleyes:
 
118118 said:
a reasonable debate on the consistency and proof of naturalism...
The objective world is something new, built up upon the world that we share experience of (this is a butchering of Husserl). I see a nasty duality here, can you explain it away so it doesn't bother me anymore?

What is the argument for naturalism?
Click to expand...
No takers?
 
118118 said:
No takers?
Click to expand...

Not right now.

And not on "proof of naturalism".

How could it be proved?

"If there were a Real World Out There independent of our observations, how could we tell?"
 
Ahhh, there are many variations of the word "proof".

Its not the same question, is it?

And you seem to be endorsing a duality of the world that we see and the objective world (that which is independent of our senses)
 
118118 said:
Ahhh, there are many variations of the word "proof".
Click to expand...

You were maybe thinking of "degrees proof"?

118118 said:
And you seem to be endorsing a duality of the world that we see and the objective world (that which is independent of our senses)
Click to expand...

Not at all. See use of the subjunctive.
 
"A Real World Out There independent of our observations" is the founding assumption of naturalism, right? Can't really be 'proved' can it? (unless you use the phildwyer definition of 'proof') "How could we tell?" implies observation, which the Real World is independant of. And we're back where we started.
 
Yeah, thinking about it, my main problem with naturalism is it must treat the existence of laws and consciousness, as, at least I suspect, a "brute fact".

By definition this means a fact that cannot be expained. So, if we accept that they are facts, we must accept that some facts cannot be explained by natuarlism.


How, will we be able to explain how consciousness arises when the neural state correlated with an itch...
Or the existence and character of laws.

It seems really simple, to me.

:confused:
 
THe cop out answer is that it maight not be perfect, but it seems to work. Which is not that much of a cop out, as this sort fo flexibilty is good to have. Maybe one day we'll factor in consciousness and we'll have to call it something else. Life goes on though and our understanding increases. *shrug*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
The Concept of “Forgiveness” Employed by Nominal Christians in Contemporary European and North American Culture
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Flavour
Flavour
M
Should the USA get rid of universal suffrage?
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
petee
petee
M
Why hasn't the world sided with China? Why does most of the world still side with America despite the terrible things they've done?
2 3
Replies
75
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
N
The social usefulness of tax
Replies
0
Views
182
nottsgirl
N
K
IHRA working definition of anti-semitism and the Jerusalem Declaration
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
mojo pixy
mojo pixy
Back
Top Bottom