Is 'scientism' a thing, or just a slur?

[mikkel_the_dane]

One of your main arguments throughout has been that there are certain topics or questions that cannot be addressed by Scientific Philosophy. One that you often cite are those questions related to Ethics. I wanted to take a moment to address this.

You state in your question above that Scientific Philosophy cannot generate the guiding or founding principles of Ethics. Certainly we both agree that we have to start somewhere, and the question becomes, “Where or how do we start?” If you are going to say that we must nebulously start with Philosophy, it is still begging the question. We are talking about people, whether Philosopher or Scientific Philosopher, having to make some subjective decision on where to start.

From a scientific philosopher’s standpoint, we would look at what is the principle subject of the inquiry, and that subject is human beings, and more specifically how should behavior be regulated when human beings interact in groups of 2 or more persons.

Therefore, the starting point in the investigation would be to develop as complete an understanding of expressions of behavior in all species generally, and then develop a detailed understanding of human behavior, both as an individual and in group behavior. This understanding would be pulled from many fields, to include general biology, neurosciences broadly, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. It would look at comparative expressions of human behavior throughout history.

With that foundational understanding of how human beings ‘work’ we can assess what group behavior mechanisms have developed organically and evolved over time into what we observe today. With that foundation, we can then begin to make subjective assessments and hypothesize on possible optimal principles for regulating human behavior above and beyond the instinctual.

Evaluation of a hypothesis is either supported by demonstrated historical value and efficacy, or through trial and error implementation of new and novel approaches. In all instances, Ethics require intersubjective agreement among members of the social group, or at least the imposition by a minority with enough power to enforce compliance.

The advantage of the scientific philosophical approach is that it is freely open to revision and reevaluation as we garner greater understanding of the subject, namely human beings. Ethical principles are not static and set upon an earlier, more primitive historical state of human society.

I think I have outlined a realistic scientific approach to Ethics. What method are you advocating for the generation of guiding principles?

Yeah, that means absolutely nothing. How is that so? Because understanding human behaviour as evaluating it's worth can't be done using science. How? Because worth in this sense has no objective referent and thus you can't test it using science.
In other words because you can't observe neither good nor bad, you can't use science, because science can't tell you if a given behaviour is good or bad as worth goes.
This is a site written by professional scientists:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
"...Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.
..."

That is so, because science can't observe any of these: Right, wrong, good, or bad.

Now I am honest. If you can actual use science to do morality, there is a Nobel prize in that, because you would doing something no other human has be able to so far. But as it stands you are apparent no aware of how right, wrong, good, or bad work in humans.

 

[cladking]

Yeah, that means absolutely nothing. How is that so? Because understanding human behaviour as evaluating it's worth can't be done using science. How? Because worth in this sense has no objective referent and thus you can't test it using science.
In other words because you can't observe neither good nor bad, you can't use science, because science can't tell you if a given behaviour is good or bad as worth goes.
This is a site written by professional scientists:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
"...Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.
..."

That is so, because science can't observe any of these: Right, wrong, good, or bad.

Now I am honest. If you can actual use science to do morality, there is a Nobel prize in that, because you would doing something no other human has be able to so far. But as it stands you are apparent no aware of how right, wrong, good, or bad work in humans.

How can science make a moral judgement when it doesn't even have a working definition for 'consciousness"? The fault isn't the nature of science which is quite capable of defining consciousness and morality but has been unable to do so to date. This failure is primarily the result of omitting philosophical considerations which are a part of science whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Science without philosophy is not only sterile but it is also meaningless. Consciousness is the only means nature provides all of her creatures to survive and morality is what is good for the specific species. The concept of animal rights is mere nonsense that could be dreamed up only in today's mad world. It is only humane to treat animals as well as possible but that's because it is good for humans. Of course this excludes things like mosquitos and ticks.

By ignoring morality and consciousness scientism condones bad behavior, poor thinking, and cruelty to animals and humans.

Homo sapiens certainly understood morality and consciousness. It was codified by at least a few cultures. It was learned through observation and bad behavior.

We (homo omnisciencis) don't understand in part because people are willing to let scientists tell them what and how to not think about those things that are most important to every single individual of every species.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Homo sapiens certainly understood morality and consciousness. It was codified by at least a few cultures. It was learned through observation.
...

Please explain what you mean by observation?

 

[Augustus]

All I can say is that my prejudgment of the material based on the abstracts has been justified. There is too much to go into to describe how Professor Harrison’s fundamental bias is expressed in his premise and throughout the lecture series, but I want to use a statement in the last lecture as an example.

In his conclusions about Science and Religion, he addresses the concept of Faith in Religion by stating, “ [Of Theology] While it is necessary that the Christian tradition have an epistemological respectability, it's also important that the trust element be reinstated in a conception of Faith.”

We see clearly here, and right from the beginning of the series as he defines the benchmark for the term Religion as that stated by Thomas Aquinas, it is clear that for Professor Harrison, Religion means Western Christian Religion. He is not advocating a return to Faith in any Religion, but rather a specific Faith in a Theology based on the Christian tradition.

The problem with prejudgement is that it interferes with ones ability to think neutrally and rationally about the thing one has prejudged

Your prejudgement certainly wasn't justified based on the points you mention as you have completely misunderstood what was being explained, not just the points but the entire context also.

Firstly, of course he is talking about Christianity because it is a history of Western thought, not a global history. Your criticism would be like complaining that a lecture on WW2 was biased as it didn't mention the Aztec Empire.

Secondly, he is not giving a normative 'benchmark' for the term religion, he is giving an example of how the term was used historically and how this differs from the modern usage. He also does this with the term 'scientia' to contrast its usage with the term science. The evolution of these terms is the entire context of the lecture series.

As for his point about 'faith', what he is talking about is how science needs to be guided by values, yet these values cannot be derived from science itself. One potential source of values is religion (it is not the only source he notes). He wasn't advocating faith as in "Jesus as lord and saviour" but simply noting that our intuitive moral values need to be taken on faith as we can't get values scientifically.

That the material presented in this lecture series should feel fundamentally true and unbiased to you, I think speaks to your unawareness of your own bias. The value you see in this series is a result of confirmation bias.

Hmmm, what bias is this then? What perspective do you assume I was biased towards prior to watching those videos?

I'm not remotely religious and never have been. I do believe Christianity has had a large impact on European thought, and much, but certainly not all, of it positive, but I had to overcome my confirmation bias and plenty of cognitive dissonance to get to that stage.

In my younger days I was a staunchly anti-theistic 'rational sceptic' who used to believe all the 'New Atheist' tropes until I actually bothered to look at the history and quickly discovered they are mostly based on rank historical illiteracy. I know what it is like to assume everything is 'apologetics' if it goes against "sceptic" orthodoxy (most people who consider themselves "sceptics" are not remotely sceptical in general, they are just anti-religion)

Nothing in those videos is particularly ideologically important to me and much of what he mentions I had no opinion on whatsoever prior to watching.

Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias, and I think it is important to keep the concept of confirmation bias to the forefront of our mind whenever we are critically evaluating material. Here is a quick synopsis of confirmation bias in Wikipedia:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills.
Hopefully my remarks will not be taken as insulting, but rather food for thought. I hope so, anyway.

Perhaps the confirmation bias is on your side. You have prejudged 2 speakers in videos I shared and both times you have made elementary errors in reasoning as a result of this.

First of all you assumed the speaker was biased because they were 'threatened by science' as you were unaware that he has a far longer track record as a successful scientist than a philosopher.

Second, you made the errors noted above.

So perhaps it is your ideological bias that is clouding your judgement as you are looking for convenient reasons to reject them out of hand rather than engage with their actual arguments

 

[Augustus]

You state in your question above that Scientific Philosophy cannot generate the guiding or founding principles of Ethics. Certainly we both agree that we have to start somewhere, and the question becomes, “Where or how do we start?” If you are going to say that we must nebulously start with Philosophy, it is still begging the question. We are talking about people, whether Philosopher or Scientific Philosopher, having to make some subjective decision on where to start.

I think you are confusing my position by making it a competition between a 'scientist' and a 'philosopher'.

My point is not that a professional philosopher should make the decisions, my point is that this is philosophy regardless of who makes the decisions.

We agree that some people make a highly subjective decision. This is why it is not scientific.

I think I have outlined a realistic scientific approach to Ethics. What method are you advocating for the generation of guiding principles?

It isn't a "scientific" approach to ethics though. It does not give us the guiding principles, it only identifies ways in which we can best achieve the ethical goals we have decided upon.

An example:

If you decide abortion should be allowed, you can use science to decide upon the point up to which it should be permissible based on the developmental characteristics of the foetus, but science can't tell you if abortion should be allowed in the first place.

That is simply a question of competing rights: the mother, the father, the unborn child, the families, society as a whole, etc.

I have posted two previous comments to sort of close out my position. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for investing the time in this discussion. Much appreciated.

Thank you too. I've enjoyed the discussion, even if we do disagree

 

[MikeF]

I think you are confusing my position by making it a competition between a 'scientist' and a 'philosopher'.

My point is not that a professional philosopher should make the decisions, my point is that this is philosophy regardless of who makes the decisions.

We agree that some people make a highly subjective decision. This is why it is not scientific.



It isn't a "scientific" approach to ethics though. It does not give us the guiding principles, it only identifies ways in which we can best achieve the ethical goals we have decided upon.

An example:

If you decide abortion should be allowed, you can use science to decide upon the point up to which it should be permissible based on the developmental characteristics of the foetus, but science can't tell you if abortion should be allowed in the first place.

That is simply a question of competing rights: the mother, the father, the unborn child, the families, society as a whole, etc.



Thank you too. I've enjoyed the discussion, even if we do disagree

All I can say is, that you and Professor Harrison wanting there to be a source of guiding principles for Ethics, does not mean there are guiding principles.

I should say, there are no guiding principles outside of biological instinct and evolving custom. The principles, values, laws, societal norms, taboo's etc. that we have today are the result of millennia of trial and error.

We do not have to maintain custom simply for customs sake. We can use our ever growing understanding of how we and the world work to make more informed and rational choices. This is what it means to keep Ethics under a Scientific Philosophy umbrella. To acknowledge that we have been making it up as we go along, and to realize that we can make more reasoned and mature choice in regards to Ethics.

Outside of Scientific Philosophy, one can use artificial constructs of reality, religious myth narratives, to create guiding principles for Ethics that are shielded from evaluation and refutation. The problem with an artificial construct of reality that is immune from empirical evaluation is that anyone can place whatever they want into the construct and all will be equally protected.

This is what is risked by keeping Philosophy separate from the principles and standards of Scientific Philosophy. There is no way to confront or argue against competing ethical claims as they are shielded in these artificial constructs.

So, in your abortion example, instead of relying on myth that dictates unequivocal restriction, one can consider all the social impacts related to abortion and actually make an reasoned and informed decision, not simply acquiesce to a dictated one.

As always however, it will all come down to intersubjective agreement among society members, whether individuals use Philosophy or Scientific Philosophy to inform their choices.

 

[cladking]

Please explain what you mean by observation?

In this specific case I am referring to the observation of bad behavior. I believe ancient people tried many things to make life easier for some and in every case what they observed were poor results from bad behavior. Things like breeding submissive people would create monsters. Things that fly in the face of common sense like open marriages, stealing, destruction, and "worshipping" material or false ideals would create disaster to both the commonweal and the species itself.

Modern people are nearly incapable of this type of observation because we see what we expect or we see with a scientific detachment neither of which will show the results of highly complex processes. Animals are fully capable of such observation though lack the complex language to pass learning down through generations.

To a very real degree observation is observation but we do things superstitiously. To a very large extent even science is a superstition among large numbers of people because they believe it is powered by magic, intelligence, or or the nature of science. Without philosophy there is no "nature of science". "Observation" to us is dependent on perspective and belief. I don't believe this was true for homo sapiens. To them observation was driven largely by what they knew. It is here that scientism becomes real; it is a belief in science and in the output of Peers.

 

[MikeF]

The problem with prejudgement is that it interferes with ones ability to think neutrally and rationally about the thing one has prejudged

Your prejudgement certainly wasn't justified based on the points you mention as you have completely misunderstood what was being explained, not just the points but the entire context also.

Firstly, of course he is talking about Christianity because it is a history of Western thought, not a global history. Your criticism would be like complaining that a lecture on WW2 was biased as it didn't mention the Aztec Empire.

Secondly, he is not giving a normative 'benchmark' for the term religion, he is giving an example of how the term was used historically and how this differs from the modern usage. He also does this with the term 'scientia' to contrast its usage with the term science. The evolution of these terms is the entire context of the lecture series.

As for his point about 'faith', what he is talking about is how science needs to be guided by values, yet these values cannot be derived from science itself. One potential source of values is religion (it is not the only source he notes). He wasn't advocating faith as in "Jesus as lord and saviour" but simply noting that our intuitive moral values need to be taken on faith as we can't get values scientifically.



Hmmm, what bias is this then? What perspective do you assume I was biased towards prior to watching those videos?

I'm not remotely religious and never have been. I do believe Christianity has had a large impact on European thought, and much, but certainly not all, of it positive, but I had to overcome my confirmation bias and plenty of cognitive dissonance to get to that stage.

In my younger days I was a staunchly anti-theistic 'rational sceptic' who used to believe all the 'New Atheist' tropes until I actually bothered to look at the history and quickly discovered they are mostly based on rank historical illiteracy. I know what it is like to assume everything is 'apologetics' if it goes against "sceptic" orthodoxy (most people who consider themselves "sceptics" are not remotely sceptical in general, they are just anti-religion)

Nothing in those videos is particularly ideologically important to me and much of what he mentions I had no opinion on whatsoever prior to watching.



Perhaps the confirmation bias is on your side. You have prejudged 2 speakers in videos I shared and both times you have made elementary errors in reasoning as a result of this.

First of all you assumed the speaker was biased because they were 'threatened by science' as you were unaware that he has a far longer track record as a successful scientist than a philosopher.

Second, you made the errors noted above.

So perhaps it is your ideological bias that is clouding your judgement as you are looking for convenient reasons to reject them out of hand rather than engage with their actual arguments

Hmmm. So would you agree with his premise that the terms 'Religion' and 'Science' are labels attached to categories that are not useful? That there are no shared properties that constitute membership in the category religion, nor shared properties that constitute membership in the category science?

As to sources of value, I only gleaned one, religion, mentioned in the 6th video. What were the others that I missed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In this specific case I am referring to the observation of bad behavior. I believe ancient people tried many things to make life easier for some and in every case what they observed were poor results from bad behavior. Things like breeding submissive people would create monsters. Things that fly in the face of common sense like open marriages, stealing, destruction, and "worshipping" material or false ideals would create disaster to both the commonweal and the species itself.

Modern people are nearly incapable of this type of observation because we see what we expect or we see with a scientific detachment neither of which will show the results of highly complex processes. Animals are fully capable of such observation though lack the complex language to pass learning down through generations.

To a very real degree observation is observation but we do things superstitiously. To a very large extent even science is a superstition among large numbers of people because they believe it is powered by magic, intelligence, or or the nature of science. Without philosophy there is no "nature of science". "Observation" to us is dependent on perspective and belief. I don't believe this was true for homo sapiens. To them observation was driven largely by what they knew. It is here that scientism becomes real; it is a belief in science and in the output of Peers.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[Augustus]

All I can say is, that you and Professor Harrison wanting there to be a source of guiding principles for Ethics, does not mean there are guiding principles.

I should say, there are no guiding principles outside of biological instinct and evolving custom. The principles, values, laws, societal norms, taboo's etc. that we have today are the result of millennia of trial and error.

Of course there are guiding principles, these just differ from culture to culture.

Yes ethics is influenced by culture and custom, it can never be any different. We cannot think independently of our own frames of reference.

Also millennia of trial and error is not necessarily a bad way to reach a social consensus. Attempts to radically remake moralities according to "rational" principles have often ended very badly (French Revolution, Soviet Union, etc.).

Regardless, you can't develop a system of morality without ethics (unless there is an objective morality to discover, which there isn't)

We do not have to maintain custom simply for customs sake. We can use our ever growing understanding of how we and the world work to make more informed and rational choices. This is what it means to keep Ethics under a Scientific Philosophy umbrella. To acknowledge that we have been making it up as we go along, and to realize that we can make more reasoned and mature choice in regards to Ethics.

Outside of Scientific Philosophy, one can use artificial constructs of reality, religious myth narratives, to create guiding principles for Ethics that are shielded from evaluation and refutation. The problem with an artificial construct of reality that is immune from empirical evaluation is that anyone can place whatever they want into the construct and all will be equally protected.

Ethics principles, be they religious or secular have always evolved and changed.

They generally can't be 'refuted' either. Policies to implement ethical principles can be evaluated, but the principles themselves can't be without numerous axiomatic assumptions which are themselves ethical principles.

So, in your abortion example, instead of relying on myth that dictates unequivocal restriction, one can consider all the social impacts related to abortion and actually make an reasoned and informed decision, not simply acquiesce to a dictated one.

One can consider many things, but ultimately it is a question of competing rights that can only be decided subjectively.

Also, how do you judge 'societal impacts'? Based on what values and assumptions?

Beyond this, even the way it is framed shows the problems claiming you can solve it scientifically. "Pro-life", science can't tell you when 'life' starts. It can tell us about developmental characteristics, but not when we should consider a foetus to have the rights of a human."Pro-choice" what is the right to choose? What are rights? Who has them? When do they get them?

This is the problem with "scientific" morality. It is a fudge by people who are uncomfortable with the subjective nature of morality because they are ideologically committed to the idea of their own rationality and can't accept their own views are simply the product of cultural contingencies and religious or secular myths the same as anyone else's.

Once we have decided on our values, then we can use science and any other means to help implement them, but science offers no help in deciding on these values.

As always however, it will all come down to intersubjective agreement among society members, whether individuals use Philosophy or Scientific Philosophy to inform their choices.

It will always be philosophy, no matter how you try to rebrand it or ho much 'science' you add after the fact (again all humans partake in ethics and moral philosophy to some degree, so this is not saying professional philosophers must decide these).

 

[MikeF]

Beyond this, even the way it is framed shows the problems claiming you can solve it scientifically. "Pro-life", science can't tell you when 'life' starts. It can tell us about developmental characteristics, but not when we should consider a foetus to have the rights of a human."Pro-choice" what is the right to choose? What are rights? Who has them? When do they get them?

I would say that science is fairly well informed about what life is, what is alive.

How does Philosophy inform us as to when a fetus should be assigned the rights of a human?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say that science is fairly well informed about what life is, what is alive.

How does Philosophy inform us as to when a fetus should be assigned the rights of a human?

I once asked a biologist at work, what life was and he gave me a paper by a biologist, who explained that there is no Objective, Abousulte, Rational definition of life. What life is, changed at the boundary to non life depending on subjective definitions/understandings; i.e. bias.

How does Scientific Philosophy inform us as to when a fetus should be assigned the rights of a human?

 

[MikeF]

I once asked a biologist at work, what life was and he gave me a paper by a biologist, who explained that there is no Objective, Abousulte, Rational definition of life. What life is, changed at the boundary to non life depending on subjective definitions/understandings; i.e. bias.

How does Scientific Philosophy inform us as to when a fetus should be assigned the rights of a human?

What are you saying, that the term 'life' is undefined? There is nothing that can be rationally consider to be alive?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you saying, that the term 'life' is undefined? There is nothing that can be rationally consider to be alive?

You operate under a duality of X and non-X in that you believe that for all cases relevant there is a single rational definition of X. That is not so, because there are border cases in not just biology, but for biology where you have processes that can both be considered life and non-life. In other words use the following way of understanding it. Consider everything in the universe a circle. Inside that circle is another circle, life. And while the understanding of some members of that circle is easy, the boundary of the 2 circles are not hard. It shifts in a small sense depending on how you define life.

Remember that all definitions are subjective and happens in brains and in some cases what you consider X depends on what defintion you use of X.

 

[Augustus]

I would say that science is fairly well informed about what life is, what is alive.

So when does 'life' start? At what point does a foetus become a human with a right to life?

What does science say about that?

Also how does 'science' differentiate between the rights of the mother, the foetus, the father, society, etc.?

How does Philosophy inform us as to when a fetus should be assigned the rights of a human?

It is an ethical question, so by definition it is philosophy.

Ultimately it a subjective value judgement.

Science can help inform us of the development of the foetus, but without the value judgement this is meaningless.

 

[MikeF]

You operate under a duality of X and non-X in that you believe that for all cases relevant there is a single rational definition of X. That is not so, because there are border cases in not just biology, but for biology where you have processes that can both be considered life and non-life. In other words use the following way of understanding it. Consider everything in the universe a circle. Inside that circle is another circle, life. And while the understanding of some members of that circle is easy, the boundary of the 2 circles are not hard. It shifts in a small sense depending on how you define life.

Remember that all definitions are subjective and happens in brains and in some cases what you consider X depends on what defintion you use of X.

Any category is a human construction. We are not in disagreement. Categories are useful. I am curious as to whether you believe we can create the label 'life', assign properties or criteria to that label, and then find objective examples that fit the criteria and that can therefore be usefully placed under the category 'life'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any category is a human construction. We are not in disagreement. Categories are useful. I am curious as to whether you believe we can create the label 'life', assign properties or criteria to that label, and then find objective examples that fit the criteria and that can therefore be usefully placed under the category 'life'.

Yes, we can. We can even use 2 different contradicting definitions at different times and get different subjective cases of useful.

- Life is a single individual, who can on its own get its own resources. Thus a fetus is not life and in some cases it is useful to get rid of it. That would also apply to babies and young individuals.
- Life is any cell or collection of cells, which can live on their own or with time can live on their own. That allows us to get rid of some handicapped people.

That is not even the only 2 definitions possible. Now if you hold one and I hold another, which one is rational and useful for an universal we of all humanity, which you claim to hold objective authority over in effect?

 

[MikeF]

So when does 'life' start? At what point does a foetus become a human with a right to life?

What does science say about that?

Also how does 'science' differentiate between the rights of the mother, the foetus, the father, society, etc.?

Life started billions of years ago and is a continuum.

I'll save the question about rights until after we resolve the matter below.

MikeF said:
"How does Philosophy inform us as to when a fetus should be assigned the rights of a human?"​

It is an ethical question, so by definition it is philosophy.

Ultimately it a subjective value judgement.

Have we narrowed the scope of Philosophy, or simply declared Ethics as part of Philosophy's sole domain.

I am trying to understand the role of Philosophy in Ethics. Surely Philosophy is playing the role of some type of arbiter between competing or conflicting subjective opinion. What informs Philosophy to enable it to make distinctions between subjective opinions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Have we narrowed the scope of Philosophy, or simply declared Ethics as part of Philosophy's sole domain.

I am trying to understand the role of Philosophy in Ethics. Surely Philosophy is playing the role of some type of arbiter between competing or conflicting subjective opinion. What informs Philosophy to enable it to make distinctions between subjective opinions?

Well, no to the Bold one. Some philosophers do try to do that and others claim is not possible.
In short, the claim is as longs as humans remains humans, it is not possible to avoid subjective bias and there is no version of Objective Rationality. That goes for all of us, including both you and I.

You seem to believe it is possible to Truly Objectively Rational and avoid all forms of subjective biases and not just some.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, we can. We can even use 2 different contradicting definitions at different times and get different subjective cases of useful.

- Life is a single individual, who can on its own get its own resources. Thus a fetus is not life and in some cases it is useful to get rid of it. That would also apply to babies and young individuals.
- Life is any cell or collection of cells, which can live on their own or with time can live on their own. That allows us to get rid of some handicapped people.

That is not even the only 2 definitions possible. Now if you hold one and I hold another, which one is rational and useful for an universal we of all humanity, which you claim to hold objective authority over in effect?

You have certainly made a clear case for Scientific Philosophy based on your two definitions of life.

That we are imperfect and fallible human beings that can devise numerous definitions of life does not mean that those definitions are all valid or equally useful.