Moral Certainty

[George H. Smith]

Yes, I remember Korzybski's hostility to philosophy; it was based, as I recall, on a flawed positivistic foundation. To paraphrase Etienne Gilson, those who declare themselves philosophy's undertakers are destined to be buried by it.

Ghs

'Buried' is quite an apt term, I would say. There's BS, MS (More of the Same), and PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper).

Semantics -- considered in the broad sense as the study of signs and symbols -- is itself a philosophical discipline and has long been regarded as such. Specifically, it is a major branch of the philosophy of language.

So, quips aside, what do you have against philosophy?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

{I wrote a version of this response earlier, but I can't find it, so I must have screwed up. My apologies if I missed the earlier reply and this constitutes a duplicate, in effect.)

Perhaps my English is not good enough, but I don't mean that they are independent of any observer at all, but that different observers (including Martian spiders) will arrive at the same statements (within the margins of error) using objective methods (the "scientific method"), as they refer to intrinsic characteristics of the objects in consideration.

Objective statements need not be restricted to the intrinsic characteristics of objects. They can also refer to relationships, such as the suitability of an object and the purpose for which it is used.

But people may value that purpose differently, and therefore will also value that functional object differently.

As I said before, this creates no problem so long as the standard that is being used in a particular context is clearly understood.

Well, that's exactly the point. Some instrument for torture may be excellent for that purpose (which may be verified objectively), but many people would not think that that instrument therefore has a great objective value. A dictatorship may be very useful for the purpose of making many people miserable, but most of us wouldn't therefore think that a dictatorship is a great objective value.

You are now raising the more complex subject of moral value judgments. In my initial reply to Xray, I indicated that I was now only considering a simpler type of "instrumental" value judgments, and that I would take up moral judgments at a later time -- if, that is, we can reach agreement that at least some value judgments are objective.

But yes, we can speak of things like a "good poison" in a purely instrumental sense, meaning thereby a poison that will enable us to kill people efficiently and that is difficult to detect. Of course, this doesn't mean that it would be morally good for someone to use this "good poison." Moral judgments pertain not only to means but to ends as well.

Ghs

[Selene]

Guys:

I was just discussing this with some folks this weekend.

(Some) Poison is Good for You Who would have thought

Radiation may have positive effects on health

A new study from the University of Toronto has found that low doses of radiation could have beneficial effects on health.

By BJS 01/30/2005 The findings, published in the latest issue of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, found that low, chronic doses of gamma radiation at 50 to 200 times background levels had beneficial effects on the stress axis and the immune axis of natural populations of meadow voles. The paper provides evidence of hormesis from the only large-scale, long-term experimental field test ever conducted on the chronic effects of gamma radiation on mammals.

Hormesis is defined as a phenomenon in which low doses of an otherwise harmful agent can result in stimulatory or beneficial effects. This phenomenon has been observed in a broad range of chemicals including alcohol and its metabolites, antibiotics, hydrocarbons, herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, as well as physical processes such as radiation exposure. The effects of hormesis have been observed in a wide range of organisms, from microbes and fungi to plants and animals. Hormetic responses are varied in form and include increased longevity; growth, reproductive and physiological responses; and metabolic effects.

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/poison_is_good_for_you.htm

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

I read Science and Sanity many years ago. I don't recall many details, but I do recall that I didn't care for much for the book. It takes more than a theory of semantics to explain knowledge; it also takes a theory of epistemology. I say this knowing that Korzybski distinguished his theory of General Semantics from what is often signified by "semantics."

Ghs

I read it 3 of 4 times and I had a far different reaction than you. Did you also notice all the bad things he said about philosophy? He was very pro-science and anti-philosophy.

Yes, I remember Korzybski's hostility to philosophy; it was based, as I recall, on a flawed positivistic foundation. To paraphrase Etienne Gilson, those who declare themselves philosophy's undertakers are destined to be buried by it.

Ghs

Isn't hostility to philosophy itself a philosophy?

Jeffrey S.

[George H. Smith]

Isn't hostility to philosophy itself a philosophy?

Jeffrey S.

Hostility to philosophy might be described as a philosophical attitude, I suppose, but it's not a philosophy per se.

But you have hit the nail on the head. Philosophy in the broadest sense is the study of fundamental principles, so to reject philosophy on a fundamental level is to engage in the self-contradictory enterprise of using philosophical arguments to banish philosophy.

Every specialized cognitive (i.e., knowledge-seeking) discipline rests on methodological assumptions, and no specialized discipline can justify its own premises. Physics cannot justify the scientific methodology that makes physics possible, nor can economics justify its methodology by resorting purely to economic reasoning, nor can history vindicate its methods by invoking historical facts. Such justifications are the business of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of history, and so forth.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

Every specialized cognitive (i.e., knowledge-seeking) discipline rests on methodological assumptions, and no specialized discipline can justify its own premises. Physics cannot justify the scientific methodology that makes physics possible, nor can economics justify its methodology by resorting purely to economic reasoning, nor can history vindicate its methods by invoking historical facts. Such justifications are the business of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of history, and so forth.

Ghs

In physics, for example, one doesn't need to justify "the scientific methodology that makes physics possible" because the justification is borne out by the results. It is only Philosophers who feel they must justify everything with verbalisms of some sort. It's quite amusing actually.

[George H. Smith]

Every specialized cognitive (i.e., knowledge-seeking) discipline rests on methodological assumptions, and no specialized discipline can justify its own premises. Physics cannot justify the scientific methodology that makes physics possible, nor can economics justify its methodology by resorting purely to economic reasoning, nor can history vindicate its methods by invoking historical facts. Such justifications are the business of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of history, and so forth.

Ghs

In physics, for example, one doesn't need to justify "the scientific methodology that makes physics possible" because the justification is borne out by the results. It is only Philosophers who feel they must justify everything with verbalisms of some sort. It's quite amusing actually.

In an effort to keep you amused, I would like an example in which a theory of physics has been justified by its results -- with absolutely no philosophical presuppositions about the meaning of "justification," or about which results should qualify as justification and which should not, or about how the key terms used in physics should be defined, or about whether the conclusions of physics should be construed only as "operational truths" or as something more, and so forth.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Every specialized cognitive (i.e., knowledge-seeking) discipline rests on methodological assumptions, and no specialized discipline can justify its own premises. Physics cannot justify the scientific methodology that makes physics possible, nor can economics justify its methodology by resorting purely to economic reasoning, nor can history vindicate its methods by invoking historical facts. Such justifications are the business of the philosophy of science, the philosophy of economics, the philosophy of history, and so forth.

Ghs

In physics, for example, one doesn't need to justify "the scientific methodology that makes physics possible" because the justification is borne out by the results. It is only Philosophers who feel they must justify everything with verbalisms of some sort. It's quite amusing actually.

Lack of justification can also be revealed by the results--the results of Marxism, for example. Self justification is seen in contemporary Marxists who are not deterred by all the dead killed by their philosophy and justified by it.

Philosophy--or rather philosophy/psychology--is the operating system of all human beings, and usually full of bugs. Real human progress is contingent on improving that system. This can be done as self improvement, a possible consequence of freedom, or top down courtesy of a totalitarian imposition, religious or political: Big Brother knows best, only he doesn't. It is not "only Philosophers who feel they must justify everything." It is most non-sociopathic people for in the broadest sense we are all philosophers, even semanticists, even scientists.

--Brant

the scientific method is part of the philosophy of science--metaphysics and epistemology--the ethics is truth and integrity--and freedom so you aren't building H-Bombs for Stalin: not forgetting the elaborations for science are nothing BUT philosophy

Edited February 24, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

[quote name=

the scientific method is part of the philosophy of science--metaphysics and epistemology--the ethics is truth and integrity--and freedom so you aren't building H-Bombs for Stalin: not forgetting the elaborations for science are nothing BUT philosophy

Not quite the same as philosophy done by the philosophers. Scientific matters are precise, quantitative and, above all, checked and cross checked by careful experiment. Very different than the word salad tossed up by professional philosophers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 24, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

In an effort to keep you amused, I would like an example in which a theory of physics has been justified by its results -- with absolutely no philosophical presuppositions about the meaning of "justification," or about which results should qualify as justification and which should not, or about how the key terms used in physics should be defined, or about whether the conclusions of physics should be construed only as "operational truths" or as something more, and so forth.

Ghs

One of the most notable examples was the prediction that light would bend due to the gravitational field of the sun. It was predicted on the basis of General Relativity and measurements confirmed it. This means the the structure of GR is similar to the structure of the event in question and this is what it means "to know" something.

[tjohnson]

Every specialized cognitive (i.e., knowledge-seeking) discipline rests on methodological assumptions, and no specialized discipline can justify its own premises. Physics cannot justify the scientific methodology that makes physics possible...

You are correct in that every knowledge-system needs assumptions, including objectivism. What might they be?

[tjohnson]

...for in the broadest sense we are all philosophers, even semanticists, even scientists.

We are all philosophers but we are not all Philosophers. Philosophers with a capital 'P' are very dangerous because they can poison the minds of people.

[Selene]

...for in the broadest sense we are all philosophers, even semanticists, even scientists.

We are all philosophers but we are not all Philosophers. Philosophers with a capital 'P' are very dangerous because they can poison the minds of people.

GS:

They can also exalt the minds of people...some crazy Russian lady did a whole lot of exalting and still does to this day.

Isn't it amazing how no amount of condemnation or refusal to recognize can quench the desire for her ideas.

Adam

[tjohnson]

...for in the broadest sense we are all philosophers, even semanticists, even scientists.

We are all philosophers but we are not all Philosophers. Philosophers with a capital 'P' are very dangerous because they can poison the minds of people.

GS:

They can also exalt the minds of people...some crazy Russian lady did a whole lot of exalting and still does to this day.

Isn't it amazing how no amount of condemnation or refusal to recognize can quench the desire for her ideas.

Adam

I can appreciate Rand as an inspiration for achievement and champion of human rights etc. but I have problems her Philosophy with a capital 'P'. We will not solve man's social problems in the context of Philosophy, our only hope is science. The real problem, IMO, is that social sciences are so far behind physical sciences.

[Selene]

GS:

Ahh, exactly, settled science like anthropomorphic global warming.

Or that Progressive science of Eugenics.

Or the fantastic results from stem cell research which was what success > 0. Is Superman walking yet? Sorry, I am more suspect of science today than I can even express.

I would have made a strong stand for science three or four decades ago, but no longer.

Adam

beware of scientists bearing procedures

[tjohnson]

GS:

Ahh, exactly, settled science like anthropomorphic global warming.

Or that Progressive science of Eugenics.

Or the fantastic results from stem cell research which was what success > 0. Is Superman walking yet? Sorry, I am more suspect of science today than I can even express.

I would have made a strong stand for science three or four decades ago, but no longer.

Adam

beware of scientists bearing procedures

I would say "settled science" is a contradiction in terms. I'm not quite sure what your meaning is here. For example, assuming there are some corrupt scientists who have manipulated data about temperature measurements does this mean you have lost all faith in science?

[Selene]

GS:

Ahh, exactly, settled science like anthropomorphic global warming.

Or that Progressive science of Eugenics.

Or the fantastic results from stem cell research which was what success > 0. Is Superman walking yet? Sorry, I am more suspect of science today than I can even express.

I would have made a strong stand for science three or four decades ago, but no longer.

Adam

beware of scientists bearing procedures

I would say "settled science" is a contradiction in terms. I'm not quite sure what your meaning is here. For example, assuming there are some corrupt scientists who have manipulated data about temperature measurements does this mean you have lost all faith in science?

GS:

Yes, I am speaking about the complete takeover of science by gender driven social political movements.

You used the phrase... have you lost all "faith" in science...

So we are supposed to accept science on faith??

Adam

[Dragonfly]

You are now raising the more complex subject of moral value judgments. In my initial reply to Xray, I indicated that I was now only considering a simpler type of "instrumental" value judgments, and that I would take up moral judgments at a later time -- if, that is, we can reach agreement that at least some value judgments are objective.

Well, with such an instrumental value definition not only Objectivist virtues as "productivity" or "independence" are objective, but such un-Objectivist values as "parasitism", "initiation of force", etc. are then equally objective values.

[tjohnson]

GS:

Yes, I am speaking about the complete takeover of science by gender driven social political movements.

You used the phrase... have you lost all "faith" in science...

So we are supposed to accept science on faith??

Adam

Well, I have faith in science. It may have hiccups along the way but eventually agreement is reached and we move on. The same cannot be said for Philosophy - there is no process in Philosophy for agreement, anybody can say anything they want and they don't have to show real results. Science has been stifled in the past and will be in the future but it can't be stopped permanently.

[Selene]

GS:

Yes, I am speaking about the complete takeover of science by gender driven social political movements.

You used the phrase... have you lost all "faith" in science...

So we are supposed to accept science on faith??

Adam

Well, I have faith in science. It may have hiccups along the way but eventually agreement is reached and we move on. The same cannot be said for Philosophy - there is no process in Philosophy for agreement, anybody can say anything they want and they don't have to show real results. Science has been stifled in the past and will be in the future but it can't be stopped permanently.

GS:

You are an athiest or agnostic also, correct?

Adam

[tjohnson]

GS:

Yes, I am speaking about the complete takeover of science by gender driven social political movements.

You used the phrase... have you lost all "faith" in science...

So we are supposed to accept science on faith??

Adam

Well, I have faith in science. It may have hiccups along the way but eventually agreement is reached and we move on. The same cannot be said for Philosophy - there is no process in Philosophy for agreement, anybody can say anything they want and they don't have to show real results. Science has been stifled in the past and will be in the future but it can't be stopped permanently.

GS:

You are an athiest or agnostic also, correct?

Adam

I don't believe in God and I think religion is primitive. Does that answer your question?

[Selene]

GS:

Yes. I thought so.

Since many of the folks who believe in God base that belief on "faith", how does that differ from your belief in science which you state is based on faith?

This is a serious question that I am asking, not a Socratic questioning just to question.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

Since your initial claim was that "There is no such thing as objective value," for now all I need do is offer one example of an objective value judgment, even if it is a nonmoral one.

This knife is very sharp and cuts well, so it is a good knife.

To describe a knife as "good" is to render a value judgment. And this value judgment can be objectively verified, using the standard of cutting well (the purpose for which knives are made) as our standard of value.

Really? I used that very knife myself, and thought it rather dull and that it cut poorly.

But then I have adopted certain standards when it comes to the sharpness of knives. This is due to my extensive training in Samurai arts that insist only on Hanso steel. Clearly your standards are not quite the same as mine.

So here's the issue as I see it. The physical object, the knife, can conform to certain objective standards of quality (such as the million folds that supposedly go into the best Samurai blades) and sharpness (which we might measure with a micrometer). We can call all these things "objective", I think, without debate. However the decision/s to adopt such standards adds the subjective element. I call this "subjective" because you can't derive a decision from a fact, or any set of facts, by the objective standard of logic.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Daniel Barnes

[George H. Smith]

You are now raising the more complex subject of moral value judgments. In my initial reply to Xray, I indicated that I was now only considering a simpler type of "instrumental" value judgments, and that I would take up moral judgments at a later time -- if, that is, we can reach agreement that at least some value judgments are objective.

Well, with such an instrumental value definition not only Objectivist virtues as "productivity" or "independence" are objective, but such un-Objectivist values as "parasitism", "initiation of force", etc. are then equally objective values.

They can be in some instrumental value judgments, depending on the context.

So we now agree that some value judgments can be "objective." Is this correct?

If so, we can move on to nonmoral normative value judgments, and then to moral value judgments.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

GS:

Yes. I thought so.

Since many of the folks who believe in God base that belief on "faith", how does that differ from your belief in science which you state is based on faith?

This is a serious question that I am asking, not a Socratic questioning just to question.

Adam

Ah..I see what you are getting at. It's quite simple really, as George pointed out, every knowledge-system is based on premises or assumptions and that includes all science. We make assumptions because we have to - we don't have (and never will have) enough information so we assume a few things and go from there. Later on, when it becomes clear that an assumption was incorrect we eliminate it but this does not mean we no longer have to assume things. It may mean, however, that we may assume less or make simpler assumptions as time goes on. The 'faith' part refers to the assumptions.

PS. I would really like to know what assumptions are at the base of objectivism. I would venture that an important one is "Existence exists"

Edited February 24, 2010 by general semanticist