The Science of Morality

[DeppityDawg]

I'm sorry if I upset you, but I would also say that I've been here long enough that you know that sometimes I exaggerate someone else's argument to an extreme in order to point out what I see as a potential flaw in that argument.  It's not meant to imply the person is stupid and I'm sure I've said some wrong things in posts that should be pointed out back to me as well.

Apology accepted. I may be a lot of things, Javert (rude, foul mouthed, crass  :: ), but my beliefs are as sincerely held as the next posters. I accept that you are wont to "over egg the cake" a bit, so I'll try and bear that in mind next time you accuse me of holding some illiberal opinion



Congrats on becoming a Mod btw.

[Javert]

Ok Javert - below is what you wrote >







I'm sure someone as intelligent as you shouldn't have to resort to writing what is a seemingly deliberate misrepresentation of someone elses opinion. I never said anything remotely like this - to resort to such tactics demeans both me and my sincerity, and that is why I am so annoyed. Why am I somehow less sincere in my beliefs than you, simply because I don't agree with you? Is it because you actually do feel some sense of superiority over other posters, that makes you feel you are entitled to alter their meaning or assume a motive that you decide they have? Could their beliefs not possibly be as sincerely held as yours, instead of having them rubbished as if they were an imbecile, like in the excerpt above?



As I've told you before, I actually like you as a poster. I've tried to have a laugh with you to lighten the mood at tense moments, but we always end up coming back to this. I write a post that you disagree with (or vice versa) and two or three posts down the line my meaning is altered or a motive is inserted by you to explain why my view is less acceptable than yours. Its happened numerous times.



Its no secret that my education was poor and I had a rough upbringing. I'm not going to go through any of that here, its the wrong place, but yes, it is a touchy subject to me, particularly when otherwise intelligent people trade on dishonesty rather than on what is actually written in a post.

I'm sorry if I upset you, but I would also say that I've been here long enough that you know that sometimes I exaggerate someone else's argument to an extreme in order to point out what I see as a potential flaw in that argument.  It's not meant to imply the person is stupid and I'm sure I've said some wrong things in posts that should be pointed out back to me as well.

[DeppityDawg]

I guess the bottom line question is, what is your point?  I agree with what you are saying, but I'm not really sure why you are reacting as if I've insulted you or suchlike because what you are saying doesn't really invalidate my prior points.  Every time these disagreements come up, you make sure to mention "highly educated" and "liberal elites", so I'm just wondering if the real thing here is that you have defined me and some others as not valid because we are too highly educated, and therefore our opinions are automatically wrong, which seems a bit strange as a starting point for a debate.



I haven't seen anyone on these forums claim that you are lowly educated or stupid, so I'm not really sure what the issue is.  Surely highly educated people should have just as much equal right to debate these things as people with no education.  Surely it's hypocrisy to define certain people without education as cleverer than highly educated people - effectively you are just reversing it around and creating yourself as the "Elite good old working class lads" better than others.

Ok Javert - below is what you wrote >

Using the deppity approach, all safety meaures in life of any kind should be removed otherwise we can't prove they they achieved anything.  It might just be coincidence that life expectancy went up massively when medical science was invented.

I'm sure someone as intelligent as you shouldn't have to resort to writing what is a seemingly deliberate misrepresentation of someone elses opinion. I never said anything remotely like this - to resort to such tactics demeans both me and my sincerity, and that is why I am so annoyed. Why am I somehow less sincere in my beliefs than you, simply because I don't agree with you? Is it because you actually do feel some sense of superiority over other posters, that makes you feel you are entitled to alter their meaning or assume a motive that you decide they have? Could their beliefs not possibly be as sincerely held as yours, instead of having them rubbished as if they were an imbecile, like in the excerpt above?



As I've told you before, I actually like you as a poster. I've tried to have a laugh with you to lighten the mood at tense moments, but we always end up coming back to this. I write a post that you disagree with (or vice versa) and two or three posts down the line my meaning is altered or a motive is inserted by you to explain why my view is less acceptable than yours. Its happened numerous times.



Its no secret that my education was poor and I had a rough upbringing. I'm not going to go through any of that here, its the wrong place, but yes, it is a touchy subject to me, particularly when otherwise intelligent people trade on dishonesty rather than on what is actually written in a post.

[papasmurf]

One very simple way to illustrate my previous points on the battle of "let them die" versus lock down, was to ask someone the simple question "If you were offered an option between your parent or Grandparent dying tomorrow, or taking a 25% pay cut, which would you take".  I reckon that when you put it that way, a large majority of people would take the pay cut.

Having in my family over the years, had to watch the disgusting scramble after an elderly relative has carked it, where there is a will there is an argument, where there isn't one there is a bigger one. I have to disagree.  My wife and I have just watched them all fight like cats in a sack.

That is why we are leaving our "estate" to charity.

[Javert]

I ought to know better by now to engage in any conversation with you, since I've lost count of how many times I've had my words twisted out of recognition and things I never wrote inserted into my replies.



I doubt you'll read this, but hey the irony of me putting an article from the Grauniard says it all really.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/wrong-coronavirus-world-scientists-optimism-experts">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sm-experts">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/wrong-coronavirus-world-scientists-optimism-experts



Sorry, but I've told you this already elsewhere. I don't believe "science" is some kind of sacred cow, in which none of its players have any disagreements or differences of opinion, and which no one should ever be allowed to question, despite the evidence that plainly, many "experts" disagree with each other.



So there you go. Twist that into your own little narrative and invent another false conclusion or opinion I didn't state. The stage is yours because I've said all I want to say to you on the subject.

I had already read that article when it came out on 2nd April.  I agree that since this virus only came into existence in November last year and only became public knowledge in December, that's a very short time.  As such, it's impossible to know exactly what the final death rate, will be, what the final % of people hospitalised will be, and so on, and data is coming in all the time.



Can you show me anywhere where I said anything different?



Statements in that article like "it's possible that half the population have already been infected" have already been discredited since that article was written, and probably prior as well.  Just because it's in the Guardian doesn't mean I agree with it - some of the commentators in the Guardian write complete drivel in my opinion on some occasions.



Of course, all of the models, forecasts and predictions will be wrong.  They will be wrong either because:



-  no forecast can ever give an exact number.   If a forecast predicted 34263 deaths, and there were in the end 34262 deaths, technically that forecast would still be wrong and you would be in theory correct to say all forecasts are always wrong.



- Forecasts are instantly invalidated by action taken to avoid the prediction - e.g. predicting 300,000 deaths if we do nothing, Well, we haven't done nothing, we have done many things.  Therefore from that perspective, you can't say that forecast was wrong, and furthermore, you certainly can't use that forecast to then claim that all forecasts and all modelling of any kind is completely useless.



I guess the bottom line question is, what is your point?  I agree with what you are saying, but I'm not really sure why you are reacting as if I've insulted you or suchlike because what you are saying doesn't really invalidate my prior points.  Every time these disagreements come up, you make sure to mention "highly educated" and "liberal elites", so I'm just wondering if the real thing here is that you have defined me and some others as not valid because we are too highly educated, and therefore our opinions are automatically wrong, which seems a bit strange as a starting point for a debate.



I haven't seen anyone on these forums claim that you are lowly educated or stupid, so I'm not really sure what the issue is.  Surely highly educated people should have just as much equal right to debate these things as people with no education.  Surely it's hypocrisy to define certain people without education as cleverer than highly educated people - effectively you are just reversing it around and creating yourself as the "Elite good old working class lads" better than others.



One very simple way to illustrate my previous points on the battle of "let them die" versus lock down, was to ask someone the simple question "If you were offered an option between your parent or Grandparent dying tomorrow, or taking a 25% pay cut, which would you take".  I reckon that when you put it that way, a large majority of people would take the pay cut.

[Nalaar]

Um....



I am not sure I sign up to that.

...

So to end on my point then, I do not myself see how a "value" can be considered an absolute as different people with different mindsets will clearly have different "values" for a particular situation...

Let's consider the value of the suffering of a rock.



Do you agree with me, in absolutist terms, that a rock does not feel pain, and so there is no moral consideration as to whether or not it is okay to stand on a rock?

[johnofgwent]

I agree with the definition of a fact you have presented.  



I would state that a value, such as moral value, is defined by its application to human suffering/well-being  (or even more broadly a conscious creatures suffering/well-being) would you agree with that?



<From there I think it is an easy to link values to facts, but I want to clarify that we agree on the term Value, as we do on the term Fact>

Um....



I am not sure I sign up to that.



I think that the people who firebombed me, and nailbombed the Chairman of my learned society, would say such values are absolute and apply to amoeba to human alike.



I do not subscribe to that. I have a very clear picture that the pork loins I shall enjoy roast with with stuffing and apple sauce tomorrow once formed part of the torso of a decidedly lower animal than me. That said, I have particular views on certain practices with animal husbandry. I am thinking in particular of the in my view seriously objectionable practice of trucking live animals thousands of miles across the EU so as to have them slaughtered locally and pretend they are local meat that attracts a higher price. This applies in Scotland as much as Greece. Thanks to a mix of bribery and ineptitude, at the time i researched the matter some years back I found you could truck beef cattle half way round the planet, drop them in a field north of Gretna Green for less than a day then take them to slaughter and LEGALLY describe the meat as grass fed scotch beef....



I'm not sure what the law is now on that, I mention it to depict just one way in which this issue is .... complicated. I have no problem rearing and slaughtering animals for food - or other resource but my contempt for those who subject animals to these stresses knows no limit, although my hatred comes from the way these scum deceive the buyer in order to turn a bigger profit, and my concern for the animal is largely one of self interest. A stressed animal by nature delivers less enjoyable meat.



I guess what I am saying by depicting with examples is I don't believe two people can actually apply the same value in equal measure.



As a scientist, a measurable value (such as a length or a mass) is measured and the observation reported with estimations of both accuracy and precision, which are not the same.  Let me explain.



Suppose you are tasked with measuring a one metre length upon the ground, and to mark these i give you some small slivers of wood such as you find as ice lolly sticks, and a metal ruler of perhaps 1 metre ten centimetres total graduated marked length, marked off in millimetes,



I hope we might agree a really good eye might be able to select a length of 1000 millimetres by placing two end points in the ground a diatance apart measured to within half a millimetre at each end, thus an overall error in accuiracy of perhaps 1 millimetre in 1000, or 0.1%



What then of "precision" ? Precision is the assessment of the degree to which a measurement is as good as the last, or the next.



Again, using the above arguments, I put it to you that a person might reasonably with good eyesight place two markers with an error of half a millimetre, so again the precision by which the next meaurement will agree with the last is about 1%



But if these error numbers are the same, what then sets accuracy distinct from precision ?



Well, if the ruler i gave you is a metal one, it is calibrated (if it is an engineering grade instrument) at a certain temperature. Let us say 25 degrees C which is an "STP" standard. If the room in which you work is cold, the ruler will shrink, if it is hot, the ruler will expand. In each case you will make measurements with a precision of one half a "millimetre" so the opportunity fo r error between separate readings is 0.1%, but at temperatures beyond the calibration temperature of 25 degrees C, expansion or contraction of the ruler will render the readings you take quite inaccurate.



So to end on my point then, I do not myself see how a "value" can be considered an absolute as different people with different mindsets will clearly have different "values" for a particular situation...

[Nalaar]

OK



Again then as a scientist, I say your idea falls at the very first hurdle because you say values are a type of fact but a fact is "A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence" and someone's subjective opinion which is all their "value" is, can never reach, or even get close, to that.

I agree with the definition of a fact you have presented.  



I would state that a value, such as moral value, is defined by its application to human suffering/well-being  (or even more broadly a conscious creatures suffering/well-being) would you agree with that?



<From there I think it is an easy to link values to facts, but I want to clarify that we agree on the term Value, as we do on the term Fact>

I might have a look around to see what I can find about this Hume chap. I presume this is he ??



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Yes.

[DeppityDawg]

I said i would be back

What, are you Arnold fecking Schwarzenegger now?  ::



I didn't know he was Welsh?

[johnofgwent]

Yes, I believe that Science can (and should) answer moral questions.







I presented it as best I could, step by step in the first post.

Values are facts about the wellbeing of humans.



Consider that you feel no ethical obligation towards a rock, you have no doubt walked over many rocks in your life and not given them the briefest consideration. That is because of factual information we know about rocks - they are not conscious, they do not suffer pain and so on. However you very much would pause to consider before you stepped on a baby.



The reason you would happily step on a rock, and not a baby, is because of fact based values.







If it fires your interest I would advise looking into the mans life and writings, as he was a remarkable thinker.

OK



Again then as a scientist, I say your idea falls at the very first hurdle because you say values are a type of fact but a fact is "A fact is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence" and someone's subjective opinion which is all their "value" is, can never reach, or even get close, to that.



On the old 'alt.sci.misc' usenet group there was a chap whose ideas were about a nutty as it is possible to be this side of a fruitcake, but he graciously accepted that while his ideas were certainly "interesting", the fact he was totally unable to define any conditions for them that would be able to be tested in accordance with the scientific method, the fact that his ideas were 'interesting' was aout as faras he count expect to get in the scientific community.



But then again, he, and possibly this Hume fellow, are in good company. Steven Hawking would never get a Nobel Prize for his work because it is a prime requirement for the Nobel Committee that a scientific medal can only be awarded in respect of work that can be empirically verified. I'm sure it would be possible to do this on the event horizon of a black hole, but getting the validation back to earth in the aftermath presents a few problems.



So i regret I still can;'t see how the scientific method can help with this.



I might have a look around to see what I can find about this Hume chap. I presume this is he ??



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

[Nalaar]

I said i would be back



I've picked up on this comment in response to DD and if I understand you correctly then, you believe, or at east you wish to explore, the concept that  that science, or the scientific method, may be a useful tool in the advocacy of a particular answer to a moral question.



Am I on the right lines now ?

Yes, I believe that Science can (and should) answer moral questions.

If so then again I say I have to disagree. All the way back on day one of my Foundation Year Science 101 if you will at the start of the Michaelmas term 1976, I was taught from the off that science advances through interaction between hypothesis and experiment, that is to say, a person will postulate a concept, a hypothesis if you will, whereby they reason that something they observe comes to pass because of this and that and x and y, and then, and here is where it gets crucial, they reason that if someone were to arrange a set of circumstances in some fashion, and then act or cause an action in a particular manner, then because of their hypothesis, they should see some result.



And the key point here is that they have to define some condition, and some action, which they say should have some measurable, observable result, at which point someone sets out to do the experiment in the manner defined, and one then notes what one sees, which might be in accordance with the predictions, or it might not. And for the true disciple of the philosophy of science and the scientific method, the correct and proper reaction to an observation that goes against the prediction is first to do it again, then get others to try, and then to say not "Oh f**k" but "That's Interesting"



But I struggle to see hoe this can possibly help with questions of morality, particularly since, as we were told all those years ago, the problem with greek philosophers is they sat on their arses and postulated quite a lot, but none of them got off those arses and thought up ways of testing their philosophies, so unlike scientists and engineers, they never progressed much.



As a 'hard' scientist then I cannot see how hard science can help "moralisers" (those who sit on their arse and postulate how nice the world would be if x were y).



Perhaps if you could suggest ways you think the hard scientist might be able to apply their discipline to the point at hand I might see more clearly.

I presented it as best I could, step by step in the first post.

Values are facts about the wellbeing of humans.



Consider that you feel no ethical obligation towards a rock, you have no doubt walked over many rocks in your life and not given them the briefest consideration. That is because of factual information we know about rocks - they are not conscious, they do not suffer pain and so on. However you very much would pause to consider before you stepped on a baby.



The reason you would happily step on a rock, and not a baby, is because of fact based values.

EDIT: By the way I've never heard of this Hume fellow.

If it fires your interest I would advise looking into the mans life and writings, as he was a remarkable thinker.

[johnofgwent]

I think it is important that we understand that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.

I said i would be back



I've picked up on this comment in response to DD and if I understand you correctly then, you believe, or at east you wish to explore, the concept that  that science, or the scientific method, may be a useful tool in the advocacy of a particular answer to a moral question.



Am I on the right lines now ?



If so then again I say I have to disagree. All the way back on day one of my Foundation Year Science 101 if you will at the start of the Michaelmas term 1976, I was taught from the off that science advances through interaction between hypothesis and experiment, that is to say, a person will postulate a concept, a hypothesis if you will, whereby they reason that something they observe comes to pass because of this and that and x and y, and then, and here is where it gets crucial, they reason that if someone were to arrange a set of circumstances in some fashion, and then act or cause an action in a particular manner, then because of their hypothesis, they should see some result.



And the key point here is that they have to define some condition, and some action, which they say should have some measurable, observable result, at which point someone sets out to do the experiment in the manner defined, and one then notes what one sees, which might be in accordance with the predictions, or it might not. And for the true disciple of the philosophy of science and the scientific method, the correct and proper reaction to an observation that goes against the prediction is first to do it again, then get others to try, and then to say not "Oh F@@@" but "That's Interesting"



But I struggle to see hoe this can possibly help with questions of morality, particularly since, as we were told all those years ago, the problem with greek philosophers is they sat on their arses and postulated quite a lot, but none of them got off those arses and thought up ways of testing their philosophies, so unlike scientists and engineers, they never progressed much.



As a 'hard' scientist then I cannot see how hard science can help "moralisers" (those who sit on their arse and postulate how nice the world would be if x were y).



Perhaps if you could suggest ways you think the hard scientist might be able to apply their discipline to the point at hand I might see more clearly.





EDIT: By the way I've never heard of this Hume fellow.

[johnofgwent]

The Science of Morality (which I propose) is quite distinct from the Morality of Science (which you refer to Johnofgwent) - while I think that your topic raised is interesting, is it not what I was looking to discuss in this thread.

OK I now think I now see where you are coming from. I'll be back...

[DeppityDawg]

Sometimes I don't understand how you can say things like that.  If you're referring to the Coronavirus or whatever, current events clearly show that science is exactly correct.  The Coronavirus has continued to infect people according to it's biology and human biology, and the rate of spread is becoming more and more predictable as more and more science data comes in.  



There are a few folks like President Trump and Bolsanaro and a few other world leaders who have said that they don't believe that, and it will all just be a storm in a tea cup, but, they have been proved completely wrong up to now.



Maybe you're referring to the point that some people are claiming that more people will die from the economic downturn than will ever die from Coronavirus.  I guess you can dispute that.



What can't be disputed is that if the government had locked down the country 11 days earlier, a lot less people would have died in the short term up to June.  That's science and I would say that's exactly the type of thing that is a science fact rather than a matter of opinion.

I ought to know better by now to engage in any conversation with you, since I've lost count of how many times I've had my words twisted out of recognition and things I never wrote inserted into my replies.



I doubt you'll read this, but hey the irony of me putting an article from the Grauniard says it all really.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/wrong-coronavirus-world-scientists-optimism-experts">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sm-experts">https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/02/wrong-coronavirus-world-scientists-optimism-experts

Science was plainly suffering herd disagreement – leaving politicians floundering. There is clearly more than one side to this argument. Will Sweden prove better or worse than adjacent Denmark? One day the mother of all inquiries will tell us. For the present, all we know is that the world is conducting a massive real-time experiment in state authority.



The world is not divided between "the science"' and other mortals. Scientists are like the rest of us. They form assumptions and grasp at evidence to validate them. They are optimists or pessimists, by nature risk-taking or cautious. My wife and I share inputs, hear the same news and read the same papers. But I am an optimist and she is a pessimist. I think we could have stuck to the Swedish model. I think the crisis will be over in three weeks. She believes it will last months. It is not much comfort that we both have scientists on our side.

Sorry, but I've told you this already elsewhere. I don't believe "science" is some kind of sacred cow, in which none of its players have any disagreements or differences of opinion, and which no one should ever be allowed to question, despite the evidence that plainly, many "experts" disagree with each other.



So there you go. Twist that into your own little narrative and invent another false conclusion or opinion I didn't state. The stage is yours because I've said all I want to say to you on the subject.

[Nalaar]

The Science of Morality (which I propose) is quite distinct from the Morality of Science (which you refer to Johnofgwent) - while I think that your topic raised is interesting, is it not what I was looking to discuss in this thread.