value wrote:Science has no justification to assume the nature of it's facts to differ from common truths despite its aspiration in the face of esteemed factual quality. The aspiration itself is questionable just like any other truth claim.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 3:31 pmI don't dispute this. In fact, I argue for it, along with those who influence my thinking. To be clear, what I don't question, which is not to say there are no questions for there certainly are, is what keeps me confident in the dentist's chair and keeps satellites from falling out of the sky. Such things have a clear, if incomplete, science behind them. Is there more to this? Of course. I brought up Foucault and Kuhn and the poliitcs of "normal science" but this doesn't raise questions about Mohs scale of hardness or the validity of carbon dating. All science is open. All knowledge is open, essentially interpretative; facts are interpretative in their nature and it is not as if the scientist has a God's eye view of anything.
I would add that what you call "common truths" are just our everydayness through which science flows spontaneously and unquestioningly, in every step and utterance. This is the scientific method, a forward-looking "process" that defines truth as repeatable results, as when I walk down the street and implicitly affirm everything around me as normal. Call this the paradigmatic nature of ordinary living, or "normal science" as Khun puts it, of everydayness.
Your example is utility. Utility derived from
repeatability.
value wrote:One could start with the concept morality:
(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
The question 'Is science 'out of control'?' tells it all.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 3:31 pmBut this isn't about science, but about politics, practicality in application, like the issue of using Josef Mengele's research on Jews in concentration camps to advance science. Or whatever else might be the source of an issue. It is not science out of control, but scientists. True, science can eclipse the moral dimension of our existence simply because morality is not objective and quantifiable (though this doesn't mean it has no objectivity) and these guys end up working with this deficit. But the came can be said for anything that encourages a singularity of thinking that ignores other things. Musicians can be mathematically obtuse and athletes relatively devoid of feeling, but this says nothing of music or athletics as such.
How can you argue that it doesn't concern science when scientists behave immoral, when science is to be considered
morally neutral and by that would
promote immoral advances for the sole purpose of advancement?
When just the idea of immoral advantage is possible, the question
why not can serve as both a motivation and justification.
Did the Nazi's believe that what they did was morally wrong? Eugenics was a global movement of science and the practice of eugenics was perceived as a greater good for humanity.
My view is that negligence of morality results in
dogmatic corruption. That's not progress. Progress is the achievement of an optimal state of being in the face of infinity. It requires the abolishment of dogma's and a fundamental questioning of anything for
ought progress. In real morality anything is possible, but one better steps it up ten notches to do it better than merely kicking-the-stone type of trying with a dose of evil or failure. Intelligence before practice. That is what morality is about. Morality transcends beyond laziness. Morality can provide an intellectual
demand (responsibility) to put in an extra effort to do things better.
value wrote:Science should be fundamentally questionable and by that it would introduce morality and philosophy into its core practice. Not by saying what science should do, but how to do it better when considering diverse contexts, which could include social and moral aspects.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 3:31 pmCore practice? No. Science's core is rigorous commitment to the truth as the facts reveal themselves to observation. The fact that a scientist acknowledges moral obligations of one sort or another, or fails to altogether has no bearing on the scientific end. I'm certainly not saying mad scietists should be allowed to rule the world; I'm just saying science is not ethics and more than it is basket weaving.
I disagree. What you indicate as 'the truth' is merely an observation of
repeatability. It is in that context that science intends to make a qualitative claim regarding the nature of facts, and in my opinion is it plainly obvious that there is no theory for validity of the idea that only that what is repeatable, is
meaningfully relevant.
At first sight therefore, science is fundamentally insufficient. The belief that facts are 'the truth' is dogmatic of nature with merely utilitarian value as ground for justification. Allowing science to proceed without morality therefore is
not responsible (not justified). In my opinion, this implies a fundamental requirement to introduce philosophy and morality into the core practice of science.
value wrote:The ability of neutrinos to change their gravitational influence might be a crossing point for science that requires philosophy to create a new method for further progress.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 3:31 pmIf you are talking about the philosophy of science, which is a specific field of inquiry not really distinguishable from speculative science, then sure. But this wouldn't be about ethics. It would be about looking for new paradigms in science.
Perhaps not. What if the ability of neutrinos to change their Gravitational influence in the world would need to be contained within the neutrino? What if that ability is qualitative of nature?
value wrote:Albert Einstein predicted it:
"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find [new philosophical] methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 3:31 pmYou know that Einstein had read Kant early in life. He was well aware of the two, objective time-space and "subjective" time-space. A curious notion to consider that one day the two will come together, just as curious that ethics/aesthetics/value will someday be part of science--after all, from a science pov, value is, speaking loosely, what matter and energy DO and it is ad hoc to exclude then from physics. But as your quote of Einstein's say, presently this is like breathing empty space. But if you are just imaging a one day unified endeavor to discover foundational Truth, then fine.
My argument would be that it [the
target of a method beyond the scientific method] is not foundational at all.
Even 'is-ness' (Being) would be at question in a context that would be beginning-less of nature, a context beyond space and time.
What is the concept Truth outside the bounds of the potential provided by repeatable nature, a context that science therefore cannot grasp?
What it comes down to in my opinion is
meaningful relevance.
Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."
A new method beyond the scientific method to proceed. This would be a task for philosophy.
Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 3:31 pmWell, like someone once put it, if there is anything better than reason, then this will be discovered by reason. I am quick to remind that thought itself is structured by the scientific method, for language acquisition is an observational process that is temporal and forward looking. This is what the pragmatists hold and I think they are right.
Did you notice the topic
Logic is it's own fallacy.? The author of that topic might be
Robert Pirsig (IQ 170), the author of the book
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (1974), the most sold philosophy book ever (5m copies).
Pirsig was trying to convince philosophers of the significance of 'Quality'.
The Guardian: "
Though a website dedicated to his ideas boasts 50,000 posts, and there have been outposts of academic interest, he is disappointed that his books have not had more mainstream attention. 'Most academic philosophers ignore it, or badmouth it quietly, and I wondered why that was. I suspect it may have something to do with my insistence that "quality" can not be defined,' he says."
His website is Metaphysics of Quality
www.moq.org.
Quality and Values... This might be the scope where further progress is to be sought. A context outside the bounds of repeatable nature but '
meaningfully relevant'.
While my logic initially resulted in the concept 'pure meaning' I recently started to refer it as 'pure quality'.
Can logic and reason explain its own origin? Can logic and reason provide the required method?