mfbukowski Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Evidence can and often should play a role. For example, it might be relevant to me to have evidence that whales are conscious. I might have another value to reconcile and I may have heretofore been under the assumption that whales are not conscious. The "should" makes that an ethical/moral assertion and nothing more- or less. And how does one define "conscious"? And why is it important to the issue if they are or are not "conscious" by some arbitrary definition? We have just now created a new moral assertion that "One should not kill conscious creatures" which is still just as unproven as the first, that evidence "should" play a role What evidence can one muster for the assertion that "evidence should play a role"? I think that is just a relic from the old days of logical positivism, pointing it's bony withered finger out of the grave of ideas long dead. http://press.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch01s02.html Look, I know what you are saying, and it's not so much that I disagree with your actual words, but the notion itself that religion is "bad" because it is "not based on objective evidence". Of course on one level everything is based on "evidence" even if the "evidence" is a flutter in your stomach the first time you meet someone who later becomes your lover/spouse, or a "burning in the bosom" upon reading a scripture. Insofar as we differ, I think it is really on an emotional level, where you feel emotionally compelled- from my point of view, to assert the primacy of "rationality" in such decisions, and I feel no such need, or to put it on an equal footing, I will say that I feel emotionally compelled to deny that assertion. I just don't worry about that stuff. We know what the word "true" means, and largely it means "I agree" and not much more. Obviously in certain contexts like science, the term is better defined than in other areas. But I think when it comes to real living breathing humans beings and what is important to us your "should" is wishful thinking which might be desirable in certain contexts, but very confusing in others, and I think, with guys like Wittgenstein, that abstract linguistic assertions and discussions, for example what is "rational" and what is not, become too ambiguous to worry about. I see Pratt as a kind of poet, and I am sure that he does not think that he is making scientific assertions. Maybe I am wrong about that, but even if he does think his views are about "reality" it is his reality- his little world that he is constructing for himself, and good for him. I think ultimately we all do that, including you and me, with our different ideas of what "should" or "should not" be.By the way, even my judgement that some belief might make me happy is an example of a rational consideration in a general sense.Hurrah!Throw in the idea that one might call it "true" and we might see you in a testimony meeting yet! Edited October 1, 2014 by mfbukowski
Tarski Posted October 2, 2014 Author Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) The "should" makes that an ethical/moral assertion and nothing more- or less. And how does one define "conscious"? And why is it important to the issue if they are or are not "conscious" by some arbitrary definition?The point was about the relevance of evidence to the question of the case of subtly conflicting values. I made no claim that evidence would settle all questions of value once and for all. The use of consciousness in the example was incidental. We have just now created a new moral assertion that "One should not kill conscious creatures" which is still just as unproven as the first, that evidence "should" play a role Even in the hard sciences we don't "prove" things. Once again, if I already have a value, empirical considerations can hep me see where other values I have could conflcit in practice with that value. One of my values is to enjoy my food. I have another value of liking what I see in the mirror. A few empirical facts about nutrition can help me coordinate those values.But there is reason to think that we may be able to do better with a lot of work. It is not impossible that evidence be relevant to the criticism or partial justification of values themselves. Comparing the stability, prosperity and happiness index of societies that give women basic rights as compared to backward societies that do not (say for religious or cultural reasons) is information that could and should play a role in the evolution of a society's values if only people "valued" evidence.To say that our "oughts" cannot be deduced from knowledge of what "is" does not undermine the more modest but extremely important fact that the more we understand about what is, the better position we are in to address the consistency of our "oughts" and the better position we are in to achieve concrete goals associated with our values. There is hardly any human endeavor that is totally independent of every question of factual knowledge. Now, I know your examples are introduced partly because you like to think about choices of religions like choices of ice cream flavors- whatever floats your boat. But religions make assertions about what is and not just about what we ought to do. They connect the two issues of values and facts quite tightly. So even if values themselves ontologically ran free of empirical facts (which I deny), religion would still not run free of facts in that way. To bring in Mormonism as an example, I would say that most people can see why it matters whether or not Joseph Smith really saw God and whether he translated some gold plates provided to him by an angel. The basic fact is that for people not overly influenced by cheep postmodernism (nothing-is-real-ism), factual knowledge itself is a value and one that is indespensible. This is not undercut by the apparent truth that all knowledge is mediated and conditioned by context, language etc. or that all evidence and data are theory laden from the start. To say these things is not to assert anything that metaphysically deep and doesn't change the thrust of what I am getting at. One cannot turn bad science into good science by shopping for a novel metaphysics. Finally I would just say that if Mr. Pratt is a poet then so are creationists, 911 truthers, cryptozologists, tarrot readers and crop circle fanatics. Besides, if he is a poet then he don't know it. Edited October 2, 2014 by Tarski
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) The point was about the relevance of evidence to the question of the case of subtly conflicting values. I made no claim that evidence would settle all questions of value once and for all. The use of consciousness in the example was incidental. Even in the hard sciences we don't "prove" things. Once again, if I already have a value, empirical considerations can hep me see where other values I have could conflcit in practice with that value. One of my values is to enjoy my food. I have another value of liking what I see in the mirror. A few empirical facts about nutrition can help me coordinate those values.But there is reason to think that we may be able to do better with a lot of work. It is not impossible that evidence be relevant to the criticism or partial justification of values themselves. Comparing the stability, prosperity and happiness index of societies that give women basic rights as compared to backward societies that do not (say for religious or cultural reasons) is information that could and should play a role in the evolution of a society's values if only people "valued" evidence.To say that our "oughts" cannot be deduced from knowledge of what "is" does not undermine the more modest but extremely important fact that the more we understand about what is, the better position we are in to address the consistency of our "oughts" and the better position we are in to achieve concrete goals associated with our values. There is hardly any human endeavor that is totally independent of every question of factual knowledge. Now, I know your examples are introduced partly because you like to think about choices of religions like choices of ice cream flavors- whatever floats your boat. But religions make assertions about what is and not just about what we ought to do. They connect the two issues of values and facts quite tightly. So even if values themselves ontologically ran free of empirical facts (which I deny), religion would still not run free of facts in that way. To bring in Mormonism as an example, I would say that most people can see why it matters whether or not Joseph Smith really saw God and whether he translated some gold plates provided to him by an angel. The basic fact is that for people not overly influenced by cheep postmodernism (nothing-is-real-ism), factual knowledge itself is a value and one that is indespensible. This is not undercut by the apparent truth that all knowledge is mediated and conditioned by context, language etc. or that all evidence and data are theory laden from the start. To say these things is not to assert anything that metaphysically deep and doesn't change the thrust of what I am getting at. One cannot turn bad science into good science by shopping for a novel metaphysics. Finally I would just say that if Mr. Pratt is a poet then so are creationists, 911 truthers, cryptozologists, tarrot readers and crop circle fanatics. Besides, if he is a poet then he don't know it. Loved that last part. It is also quite clear that physicists are more poets than anything when it comes to expressing their theories in natural languages. Words are metaphors and symbols. Whether or not they know it is another issue. http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdfSusskind worries that reality might bebeyond our limited capacity to visualize it.He is not the first to express such a concern.In the 1920s and 1930s the founders of quan-tum mechanics split into realist and anti-realist camps. Albert Einstein and other re-alists held that the whole point of physics isto come up with some mental picture, how-ever imperfect, of what objective reality is.Sorry about the formatting- but that is the real issue here. The idea that we can know something about anything which is beyond our paltry ability to perceive and construct an understanding in our minds is the real illusion. On some level it will always be poetry all the way down. If you want to call that "cheep (sic) postmodernism" then so be it. Edited October 2, 2014 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts