Who hear thinks..........

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes you are both right, I was thinking that in the future, methodological studies, including scientific, social or psychology will play a larger role in understanding the best way to approach ethical and social issues, like the one you mentioned, domestic violence.

Do you agree, they have taught us so much and will only teach us more?

Perhaps you don't recall, but we already had this discussion, and I answered you fully.

 

[Yazata]

Yes or No answers only please.

It's hard to answer intelligently without giving reasons and without additional discussion of each one.

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

Yes.

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?

No.

Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

Orbits, not rotates. Earth rotates around its axis. See what I mean about discussion?

Yes.

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

No.

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

No.

 

[firedragon]

Yes or No answers only please.

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?
Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

There could be a million of these but you get the picture.

Science is a systematic and empirical method of inquiry aimed at uncovering truths about the natural world. So that's that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't collect data, I didn't compare it, I didn't test or retest, I wrote nothing, I did absolutely nothing involving science. None at all. I just did what people have been doing since we were people that's had a noted effect for helping people get over their prejudices.

I didn't say you engaged in formal science. I said you used scientific principles.

You 'looked at the world' = gathering data
You then formed a conclusion from that.

Your conclusion is then further validated as you continuously look more and more at the world (by necessity.... you meet new people, hear new viewpoints, learn of more examples as time goes by and you rank up experience after experience).

In the same way, I test my assumptions about gravity every time I jump up and fall back down, every time I drop my keys, ...

You inadvertently form models in your brain about external reality. You do this out of necessity.
And with every new relevant experience, you by necessity either validate those models or you are forced to alter them to accommodate for that new experience in case it didn't match the model in your head.

Such is a fundamentally scientific principle.
We didn't invent formal science in a vacuum.... we based it on our experience of how to best draw reliable conclusions.
In formal science, we are going to structure all these things so that we can also eliminate bias and better distinguish things like correlation vs causation and what-not.

None of this takes away from the fact that drawing conclusions from observations / experiences + validating those conclusions against future observations / experiences, are fundamental scientific principles that we ALL apply in our daily lives pretty much out of necessity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, it does.

Actually, it doesn't.

Show me a self-harming sacrifice that is considered moral which only results in increased suffering for yourself and others, where the goal is to increase suffering for yourself AND others.

Or show me a self-harming sacrifice that is considered moral of which the goal is NOT to increase well-being one way or the other as either a direct or indirect result.

Note that all examples you gave had an end goal of increased well-being in mind.
Having jews escape prosecution, ending apartheid, ending oppression, obtaining civil rights,...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, of course. But it is very fascinating to me that even though the snap decision on a moral decision is not conscious, once we make that decision and the conscious mind becomes aware of it, that conscious mind will then fabricate all sorts of "reasons" why we made that "choice."

I don't think it's that fascinating. We are social creatures and we have literally evolved with the propensity to act in moral ways, as that benefits survival for the tribe / group / species. In social creatures, there is a constant struggle between the interests of the individual vs the interests of the group. But there is also the very real realization that it's far easier to prosper in a group that prospers then in a group that is in bad shape. Meaning that often, it is in your best interests to act in the group's best interest.


This propensity is pretty much build into our human psychology. We feel "bad" and "ashamed" and "guilty" when we act selfishly at the detriment of others, against the best interests of the group or, IOW, immorally. This is why we have traits like empathy and alike. It makes so that we generally have a good instinctive sense of what is and isn't moral. And that instinct is the combination of all of the above: we realize quickly what is in the best interest of ourselves / others. What does and doesn't cause harm.

In a society that turn very complex very quickly like today though, many times our "tribalistic" nature can't quite keep up, making us make wrong decisions.
Sometimes, what "feels" like a good decision (instinctively, intuition, culturally,...) isn't actually a good decision at all. It might even be a very very bad one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't say you engaged in formal science. I said you used scientific principles.

You 'looked at the world' = gathering data
You then formed a conclusion from that.

Your conclusion is then further validated as you continuously look more and more at the world (by necessity.... you meet new people, hear new viewpoints, learn of more examples as time goes by and you rank up experience after experience).

In the same way, I test my assumptions about gravity every time I jump up and fall back down, every time I drop my keys, ...

You inadvertently form models in your brain about external reality. You do this out of necessity.
And with every new relevant experience, you by necessity either validate those models or you are forced to alter them to accommodate for that new experience in case it didn't match the model in your head.

Such is a fundamentally scientific principle.
We didn't invent formal science in a vacuum.... we based it on our experience of how to best draw reliable conclusions.
In formal science, we are going to structure all these things so that we can also eliminate bias and better distinguish things like correlation vs causation and what-not.

None of this takes away from the fact that drawing conclusions from observations / experiences + validating those conclusions against future observations / experiences, are fundamental scientific principles that we ALL apply in our daily lives pretty much out of necessity.

You trying to insert science like a Christian wants to insert Satan. It's just not there. It's not what I did.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually, it doesn't.

Show me a self-harming sacrifice.

House is on fire with 4 year old inside. Dad races in, even though Firefighters tell him it would be suicide. He saves his child. Hours later, he dies of smoke inhalation.

Man is going to die unless he needs a kidney. Brother donates his kidney.

Parent works two jobs in order even though it adversely affects their health and wellbeing, to provide kids with better food, better education, and other opportunities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You trying to insert science like a Christian wants to insert Satan. It's just not there. It's not what I did.

I'm saying we all do this automatically. We all apply scientific principles when we figure stuff out in this manner.
Collecting data, forming a model to explain said data and then validating future data against the model. And if need be, change the model to accommodate for that new data.

It is exactly what you did (and what you do every day of your life when you observe stuff, take in information and come up with an explanation or find out that you were incorrect about something).

It's how you figure out that knives are sharp, that fire is hot, that water is wet, that eggs are fragile,...
Not sure why you find this to outlandish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

House is on fire with 4 year old inside. Dad races in, even though Firefighters tell him it would be suicide. He saves his child. Hours later, he dies of smoke inhalation.

Man is going to die unless he needs a kidney. Brother donates his kidney.

Parent works two jobs in order even though it adversely affects their health and wellbeing, to provide kids with better food, better education, and other opportunities.

WTH.......................

Why did you leave out the rest of the sentence?

This was the full sentence:

Show me a self-harming sacrifice that is considered moral which only results in increased suffering for yourself and others, where the goal is to increase suffering for yourself AND others.

You completely omitted the bold underlined part in your quote and even replaced it with a period, as if the sentence was just "show me a self-harming sacrifice."

None of your examples are examples of what I actually asked for. They are examples of what you changed it into.
All your examples have as end-goal to end / avoid suffering of others and / or increase their well-being.
That is in fact what makes them moral.





I'm a bit surprised, and disappointed, to see you do this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is exactly what you did (and what you do every day of your life when you observe stuff, take in information and come up with an explanation or find out that you were incorrect about something).

Science is formally gathering and recording data to form measurements and record empirical data. Science is sharing and comparing your results with others who will attempt to replicate and correct amd find areas in areas for correcting. By it's nature it is never ending amd driven by discourse among the peers of professionals (and amateurs as well have made significant contributions).
But getting to know your coworkers? That's a whole different thing.

 

[Madsaac]

But getting to know your coworkers? That's a whole different thing

Is it though, this is where methodological studies can go a long way to working out the best ways to get to know your coworkers. And maybe if we paid closer attention to these sorts of studies, things could be better?

The science of psychology could have enormous influence on humanity in the future.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it though, this is where methodological studies can go a long way to working out the best ways to get to know your coworkers. And maybe if we paid closer attention to these sorts of studies, things could be better?

The science of psychology could have enormous influence on humanity in the future.

You are still doing it. There is no better or worse with science. Better is subjective and science is objective. That is it.

 

[Madsaac]

Who is the best to know whether you ever had eggs before the age of 2? It's not science but the testimony of your own mom. Your obssession of science may turn out to be a joke. Science can only be accurate when dealing with something repeatable.

Yeah mum, but what is the best way to know for sure, that eggs are nutritious.

 

[Madsaac]

You are still doing it. There is no better or worse with science. Better is subjective and science is objective. That is it.

Science is objective, what I say is my own opinion but science is objective?

And we will only use, what shows us to be positive.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is objective, what I say is my own opinion but science is objective?

Yes, better is subjective and an opinion. Science is objective as a method.

You can learn how to kill humans and also save lifes using science. But science can't tell which one is better.

 

[Madsaac]

Yes, better is subjective and an opinion. Science is objective as a method.

You can learn how to kill humans and also save lifes using science. But science can't tell which one is better.

Yes, you may be right, at least science can give us the ability to make educated choices

 

[Muffled]

Yes or No answers only please.

Science is the BEST way to know water is made from H2O?

Edit: Science is the BEST way to know the sun will come up tomorrow?
Science is the BEST way to know the Earth rotates around the sun?

Science is the BEST way to know our lungs help us beath?

Science is the BEST way to know humans cannot walk on water?

There could be a million of these but you get the picture.

I believe you were OK until you hit the walk on water question. I have seen a man walk on water with pontoons on his feet.

 

[Muffled]

Well with some of those answers you may have too?

I thought there was only one answer, I did say the 'best way'

I believe that may be a misnomer. It is not necessarily the best way in some instances but it is the easy way in some instances.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is it though, this is where methodological studies can go a long way to working out the best ways to get to know your coworkers. And maybe if we paid closer attention to these sorts of studies, things could be better?

The science of psychology could have enormous influence on humanity in the future.

True. However this insistence of meeting and getting to know people, yeah, I'm an existentialist, not a scientismist. I believe science is an amazing, usefull tool that revealed many secrets of the natural world, but it's just that. A tool. And there is no tool that works for all situations, and scientism to me seems like people always carrying a hammer and seeing nails everywhere.
But getting to know someone and learning about them and starting to care for them? That's just called empathy.