Submitted by CartesianClosedCat t3_ymx5ma in philosophy
Comments
nibbler666 t1_iv6to0k wrote
You have misunderstood the text. It does not claim to provide the answer to how science works. It just illuminates a particular sociological aspect of the workings of science.
AllanfromWales1 t1_iv6vp9w wrote
But it does so using a highly simplistic model of what science is and how it works, and as such is not of value.
nibbler666 t1_iv6vvjn wrote
It is a "model" about one single aspect of science.
AllanfromWales1 t1_iv6wpv8 wrote
It is a "model" about one single aspect of an idealised concept of science, not actual science.
MonkEfficient4237 t1_iv9o9kk wrote
So, what are you arguing, that the outcome of science throughout the history was not moral, because of the financial aspect that tends to be involved? That would be ridiculous.
AllanfromWales1 t1_iv9qldp wrote
No. I am arguing that science is an enterprise to improve human knowledge and understanding which is flawed by the drivers involved in it. I do not believe that even if it were perfect that would make it 'moral' under any rational interpretation of that term.
MonkEfficient4237 t1_iv9rzba wrote
Science works having at the base of its foundation moral principles and also creates moral outcomes, and also helps in revealing a better moral system for humans, so it is very hard for someone to say that morality has little to do with it like you are saying. The "yes but it is not being perfect" as an argument has little to no value in most discussions, at least to me, as it is already an abstract unachievable thing in the first place.
AllanfromWales1 t1_iv9s4sh wrote
> as it is already an abstract unachievable thing in the first place
Morality?
More generally, that's like saying eyes are moral things because morality uses what they see. Which is nonsense.
kreukle t1_iv6nhla wrote
Morality is relative, and so is science.
There are many possible moral systems - it should be evident from the situation in the world today. If you can justify something based on your values/beliefs - it invokes your "feeling of justice". And there are many values/beliefs combinations. Not everything is pure facts of science (something like "single truth of what the world is") to compare against and tell what is the best, especially because of the uncertainty of the future.
Science is not "here on its own", but in people's minds. More importantly, it is spread in society. The rigorous methods/tools of science are one thing, but the gaining of knowledge as social debates (reasoning based) is another. The models that science builds are not "absolutely true". Therefore, the selection of models by social interactions (persuasion, truthfulness, financing, etc.) has similar characteristics as social morality.
To put it simply: the "fighting" of social models is the same as the "fighting" of scientific models.
glossteam2 t1_iv8012i wrote
Relative morality is called situational ethics, is that what you claim science to be.
kreukle t1_iv9xomo wrote
Edited the original answer.
My3rstAccount t1_iv8ngy2 wrote
Pretty much. Quantum on one side, relativity on the other. Gnostic vs kabbalah, but we all worship the same god. Apparently joining the two is a biatch.
I know I sound crazy, but I'm surprised it's confusing people considering even Einstein looked to philosophy for answers after relativity. Dude was recycling old ideas to see if they fit anywhere else, trying to turn feelings into numbers. Not a bad idea if you have the vision to see it and the time to waste chasing it.
hopeyglass1979 t1_iw42nuo wrote
Sounds like some thinly veiled crypto-fascism couched in a bunch of preening bafflegab, jerkoff.
Lydianeko2 t1_iv5x8nh wrote
I feel using science as a moral system would lead too much towards utilitarianism where what is moral would be based on the amount of good to come out of the results of scientific experiments etc. There was and is still a lot of anti-moral things going on in the world is science since before the Nazi's and Japanese used science to do tests on prisoners of war or disabled people. A lot of science is reliant on animal testing which is often lethal or debilitating to animals putting the needs of humans above animals.
There are other forces which use science as a way to justify their actions, companies can gain the results they need by adjusting statistics to make for example fast food look healthy, smoking to be beneficial etc. Therefore if science was to be a totally impartial moral system, it would have to be implemented by totally impartial people who were 100% dedicated to their integrity no matter the results. I don't feel we are at this stage at all right now as most science is funded by, charities, governments, companies and enterprises with some motive to the results and outcomes.
astro-kiki t1_iv61t15 wrote
Without integrity the scientific pursuit is flawed. Science cannot be run by business if its to be science.
heresyforfunnprofit t1_iv6dgux wrote
Huh? Science is a tool, not a ascetic priesthood. Businesses are historically one of if not THE greatest utilizers and drivers of science. Claiming otherwise requires a ridiculous amount of gatekeeping as to what constitutes “real” science, and that just makes one sound like a bitter mathematician who gets angry because someone figured out a real-world application for a “pure” theoretical model.
throw4jklfj t1_iv7f1uh wrote
I think they're mostly talking about situations where companies find out that whatever they're producing or researching has negative impact towards either the environment or the populace and the company buries the evidence of said negative impact to protect the business. One example is how Syngenta has attempted to silence Dr Tyrone Hayes when he discovered that the chemical Atrazine, which Syngenta produces, is an endocrine disruptor that is negatively impacting wildlife in areas where the atrazine has been applied and washed away into local water sources.
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv6bwvh wrote
But sometimes we cant escape utility, some situations simply call for it, such as the trolley problem.
I dont think morality can be pure utility or pure virtue/values, it depends on the situation, sometimes its more utilitarian, sometimes its more virtuous, different circumstances require different tools to solve.
WrongAspects t1_iv918e1 wrote
Why would you demand things from sciences that you don't demand from religion or philosophy?
tianavitoli t1_iv8a7qu wrote
it's basically a long winded way of saying the ends justify the means. "we have good intentions so indulge us regardless of whatever foresight you might have, we have good intentions, so if you don't agree with us, you defacto have bad intentions, so we can kill you"
tianavitoli t1_iv8adhk wrote
in before:
"follow the science" and later on "I am the science"
"now is the time to do as you're told" - anthony fauci
fencerman t1_iv6898s wrote
I think this is less about telling us "science can answer moral questions" (it can't) but rather pointing to the way that "science" itself has the same attributes as various ethical philosophies, like utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics.
In particular the focus on "reputations" of scientists shows that the "virtue ethics" elements of science are far stronger and more prominent in practice than most philosophies of science would generally admit.
Lahm0123 t1_iv6kdco wrote
There goes objectivity. Good thing science doesn’t require that.
/s
PaxNova t1_iv7djt1 wrote
This article is focused on how people may view science similarly to how they do morality, not a judgment on whether or not it should be moral or have findings based on morality.
whiskeyriver0987 t1_iv87fxq wrote
Science science cannot bridge the is/ought gap. You can apply a moral framework and use science to gather information and guide decision making, but that moral framework is ultimately outside of the bounds of science.
DrakBalek t1_ivf2t03 wrote
Are we absolutely certain of this?
We've been able to observe empathetic and altruistic behavior in animals, even (arguably) in bacteria. Is that not a sign that our moral framework has a biological component? And if it does, doesn't that mean that we (potentially) isolate morality within the confines of biology (and thus, the physical world)?
whiskeyriver0987 t1_ivgaket wrote
Yes and no. It's means our commonly held moral axioms are derived from biological drives, it doesn't mean those axioms are correct or incorrect in any meaningful way that isn't self referential.
Shiningc t1_ivrvtj3 wrote
Morality is "ought", and science is "is". The famous problem is you can't get an ought from an is.
DrakBalek t1_ivsvn8e wrote
And that problem is solved if we can point to a genetic trait that causes feelings and/or behaviors which we typically associate with morality.
Isn't it? I suppose we could continue to argue otherwise but that just . . . I dunno, seems off somehow.
Shiningc t1_ivsyyz7 wrote
And the problem is that we can change our "genes". Our brain contains more information than the information stored in our DNA.
DrakBalek t1_ivszalq wrote
Which implies we can change the degree to which a person feels compelled to engage in moral behavior.
How is that a problem?
Shiningc t1_ivt8ech wrote
The whole point of morality is that we go against our genetic imperatives. Our genes may tell us that we're hungry and we should eat, but morality tells us that say, we should not steal or kill animals or whatever.
It may be possible to pinpoint a part of genes that enable or disable certain moral behavior. But what's to say that the person wouldn't eventually become self-aware of that fact? He becomes aware that a part of his genes is telling him to do something. He starts to think rationally about the fact. He starts to think that the morality that his genes are telling him to have is deplorable. The fact that we have the ability to think rationally means that we can be above our genes.
So genes may tell us to have certain moral behavior. But morality is actually based on rationality. We may or may not listen to our genes. We may actively go against it.
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv8tifv wrote
From the article:
>"This important role of trust in science, however, is not new. Ever since the emergence of science, scientists had to rely on the work and the testimony of their peers and others in order to make progress... The production of scientific knowledge is not, and never has been, an individual, but a collaborative affair.
Equivocating 'trusting that a fellow scientist isn't fabricating data' to 'trust in science' is so infuriating. Those are two totally different things. The reason I trust in the scientific method is because it tests hypothesis, gathers data, conducts experiments, and reproduces results. I don't "trust in science" because Richard Dawkins is just a great guy who could never tell a lie, I trust in science because any Joe Six Pack could pick up the journal article, recreate the experiment, test the hypothesis, and confirm or deny the results. After so many confirmations or denials, who am I to distrust the science?
vrkas t1_iv674ee wrote
I enjoyed this article, and broadly agree with thesis. I'd also like to highlight the interactive reasoning bit, which has been vital to my development as a scientist and has really emphasised the sociological aspects of science. I've never done better work than when my colleagues were also friends who I could bug with discussion topics and vice versa.
Just a small aside about this para:
>In 2015 the physics journal Physical Review Letters published, for the first time ever in the history of science, a paper with more than 5,000 authors. The findings reported in the article resulted from the combined efforts of two teams working with the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. Their goal was to obtain a better estimate of the mass of the Higgs boson that was only discovered a couple of years before.
Authorship in large collaborations means different things depending on the collaboration in question. It certainly doesn't mean that 5000 people wrote the paper, or even that most of them actually read the paper before it was released*. It means that they have contributed to the collaboration(s) and so are acknowledged. It also means that they trust the methods and judgement of their fellow scientists in the collaboration to put out good results, which comes back to building a local morality.
* Extensive documentation, often hundreds of pages of technical material, is accessible for members of the collaboration. The papers are also circulated to the collaboration(s) weeks before release and anyone has the right to ask questions or make suggestions.
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv6bbky wrote
"IS cannot become Ought but Ought needs to reference IS to even make sense." -- by me, lol.
It means we live in a reality of IS, so any Oughts we developed have to reference some IS from nature and reality, we cant develop ought statements based on nothing that IS not already there.
Even our most basic behaviors are simply biology (instinct, evolution, natural selection), basically a bunch of biological "IS" that existed long before we could conceive of any philosophical Oughts that are still rooted in our primitive biology.
According to Is/Ought fallacy, you cant say there IS gravity so we Ought to be nice to our neighbors, but we can make reference to gravity when we say we Ought not to push our neighbors off a building, because that would kill them. lol
I dont believe any moral ought can be made without making use of various scientific facts about our reality, rooted in them even.
Samuel7899 t1_iv6r9r1 wrote
Why do you assume we live in a reality of IS and not a reality of OUGHT?
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv78pec wrote
Because there is a physical reality of “is” that we have access to through our senses (being a brain in a vat notwithstanding). In general, many people agree on what “is” about the world.
There is no similar sense perception for “ought,” and in general, people do not agree on what they call an “ought.”
It seems an easy assumption that there “is” something about reality, but maybe not an “ought” considering the imbalance of assurance.
I also think desires are an “is” about the world, and to maximize the fulfillment of desires is a question of “is.” Sally desires justice, happiness, comfort, and other things. It’s a question of, if Sally does ABC and maybe convinces others to do ABC, then the world will be XYZ, where XYZ is a world that fulfills Sally’s desires. Pragmatically, XYZ should fulfill most other people’s desires because other people won’t want to do ABC if it doesn’t meet their desires.
Samuel7899 t1_iv7c7dl wrote
> In general, many people agree on what "is" about the world
> in general, people do not agree on what they call an "ought"
While I agree on the popularity of these terms, I'm not particularly fond of relying on popularity as an argument for or against something of this nature.
"the fulfillment of desires" sounds very much like an "ought" to me, not an "is".
You talk about the physical reality of "is" being something tangible that we can perceive through our senses... Yet you're also labeling Sally's desires as an "is", which seems to undermine your initial point about "is".
You're describing Sally's desires as an if/than statement, and yet you don't think that's a potential "ought"?
I'm not arguing for or against either... While I tend to agree that "ought" cannot really come from "is"... I wonder why everyone assumes that the starting point is "is" and not "ought". Because I think "is" can come from "ought". And I also don't think it's terribly challenging to imagine a world originating from "ought" not "is".
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv8s7ja wrote
>While I agree on the popularity of these terms, I'm not particularly fond of relying on popularity as an argument for or against something of this nature.
I'm not either. I'm commenting on your question of "Why do you assume we live in a reality of "is" and not a reality of "ought?" I am not the person you asked that to, but I figured I'd answer anyways. I am assuming, as I'm sure the other person does, too, that there definitely is an "is" to the world. If I'm making assumptions, I'll assume away the thing that seems the most obvious until I hear something that makes it questionable.
>"the fulfillment of desires" sounds very much like an "ought" to me, not an "is"
When I say desires, I mean it in the broadest, evolutionary sense possible, something like "material, emotions, and stimulation the organism wants/needs/desires for survival, health, and happiness." It's hard to call those things an "ought" because dogs obviously want things, they even need things to survive, but to say the dog "ought" to seek out the game of fetch seems weird, just as it seems weird to say a dog ought to eat to survive, unless you just mean an if/then if it wants to survive, then it should eat. The dog just "is" wanting to play fetch, in the same way my want for equal treatment under the law is a chain of conclusions stemming from my desire to be happy and healthy in the world, and that desire to be happy and healthy just "is" what I desire.
>You talk about the physical reality of "is" being something tangible that we can perceive through our senses... Yet you're also labeling Sally's desires as an "is", which seems to undermine your initial point about "is".
"Ought" arises when one questions what they should be desiring, as in what is a "good" thing to desire. The question pretends that a person is able to control what makes them happy and healthy. People just desire to be happy and healthy, and the nature of what makes someone happy is not under their control, just as the desire to be fulfilled/happy/healthy/survive isn't under their control. It just is a truth or a false that one desires this or that, that ABC leads to XYZ. The "ought" is if one should desire this or that, but that assumes one can control their desires, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for free will.
>While I tend to agree that "ought" cannot really come from "is"
If one means "ought" to mean "if you want this, then you ought to do that", then I think you can craft an "is" from "ought." If you want to solve world hunger, then you ought to do things that further that goal.
>I wonder why everyone assumes that the starting point is "is" and not "ought".
As I said, the reality of the universe seems to really be really real, and there really seems to be some kind of real set of rules that really determines how things play out in this reality. There is no equivalent overwhelmingly obvious set of rules for the "ought reality."
>Because I think "is" can come from "ought". And I also don't think it's terribly challenging to imagine a world originating from "ought" not "is".
I think it's very hard to imagine an "is" that derives from "ought" because if there is no "is" to begin, then there is no "is" to behave how it "ought" to behave. If there is an "ought," which I don't believe really exists, it must be proceeded by an "is" that can do what it ought. Edit: Re-reading this, I guess if we can imagine that "ought" exists somewhere, that there is a 'Higgs boson field of morality' that we just haven't discovered yet, then I supposed it could exist before, after, or come to exist exactly at the same time as everything else.
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv8zw3v wrote
Can space, time and matter exist if no conscious minds are around?
I mean, 13.7 billion years of the universe and most of those billion years are without life, we know this because we measured it with our scientific instruments.
Gravity IS a thing regardless of what we "ought" to think about it, even without any humans around, gravity would still be a thing.
Are you saying all of time, space and matter cannot exist if we humans dont think about them?
Shiningc t1_ivrwdao wrote
Because ought is the reality of the future, and we currently live in the present. We're stuck in the present with no access to the future, until we get there.
whiskeyriver0987 t1_ivi1hh4 wrote
Your analogy only works if you have a moral framework that that can derive that killing you neighbor is bad. You haven't solved anything.
MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_ivi5bqx wrote
I was trying to solve something? lol news to me.
Also, dont know what you are trying to say.
JustAPerspective t1_iv6thyh wrote
The identification of integrity as essential to information's validity is quite telling.
Science relies on accurate information to make actual advances. Thus, deception/misinformation is clearly antithetical to learning.
Stop lying, a sustainable society can be built.
Condone lying, societies will continue to rise & fall like the ocean tides.
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv8u3ui wrote
>The identification of integrity as essential to information's validity is quite telling.
But is it? The information is either true or false, no matter who communicates the information.
>Science relies on accurate information to make actual advances.
That's true, but is the author's integrity important to whether the information is true or false? Is there a real difference between a bad actor reporting that 1+1=3 and a good-natured scientist accidentally reporting the same falsehood? From either source, anyone can run their own experiment to test the hypothesis. Information is the material of science, not the people making the claims.
JustAPerspective t1_iv8w0d4 wrote
If someone lies, all of their work is suspect - regardless of whether it is incompetence or willful deceit.
BroadShoulderedBeast t1_iv92jnm wrote
If someone publishes, their work is suspect. All work is suspect, no matter who says it or why - that's the whole point of the scientific method.
The only way to verify suspect information is using the scientific method, not through an interrogation of the author. The scientific method works just the same for true and false information and for claims made by good and bad people.
When a paper is published announcing a discovery or it happens to be the first confirmation of some theory, it isn't then touted as fact because the author has a track-record or does charity work and passes the vibe/integrity check.
JustAPerspective t1_iv9e6bj wrote
Long & short: lie on purpose, wrong.
Make a mistake: oops; shit happens.
Willful misinformation is not forgivable, for a long list of reasons that only confuse those who can't imagine a world without lying.
What you're talking about is information verification, which is a different thing.
So... whatever makes ya happy.
DrakBalek t1_ivf3nrv wrote
Knowing that a scientist has a habit of publishing misleading, misguided, inaccurate or otherwise deliberately false information is justification for ignoring what that scientist says and believes.
It's not justification for ignoring the results of their work.
>If someone lies, all of their work is suspect . . .
and within scientific fields and disciplines, the standard is that all work is suspect until it's been tested and recreated under similar conditions.
roychr t1_iv6wmjo wrote
How does this differentiate with a technocracy ideology ?
Dominion1995 t1_iv7cujc wrote
The consensus used to be that the earth was flat.
[deleted] t1_iv7v9cm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iv8ho95 wrote
[removed]
mdebellis t1_ivfdbex wrote
I agree with a few things in this article although I don't think in the way the author intends. I've said before that IMO there is no major difference between science and philosophy. The difference is that what we call philosophy are topics where science is very immature such as the study of human ethics. Similarly, I think that there is no one "scientific method" but rather science is a combination of various methods such as peer review, data analysis, theory development, mathematical analysis, experimentation, falsifiable hypotheses, etc. For some disciplines (e.g., physics and chemistry) we can use all of these tools for others (e.g., psychology and even history) we can only use some. We use as many as we can for any problem. Some will object that for example it is impossible to do experiments regarding history but in fact I've seen various experiments done to attempt to answer questions such as "Where was the battle of Cannae actually fought?" or "what was Greek fire?".
I also think there is no question that science can apply to the study of ethics. Moral Origins by Christopher Boehm, Moral Minds by Marc Hauser, and a paper I wrote based on some of Hauser's ideas and research in evolutionary psychology: https://www.michaeldebellis.com/post/umg_ontology
I also think that there is a lot of overlap between good science and being (what I consider) a good person such as rationality, accessing arguments rather than the status of those who make them and so on. But (as I argue in my paper) there is one fundamental difference between what we consider morality and what we consider science. That is that morality is about value judgements. There are many scientific theories that can make one feel uneasy. Saying "if X is true then Y is true and Y is something I consider fundamentally immoral regardless of any arguments" is not a valid scientific argument. This is what Hume called the Is-Ought problem. We can't go from the domain of analyzing the universe (is statements) to what is moral and right (ought statements). Thus, any coherent moral system must start with at least one axiom that says I value X because I value X. E.g., a Utilitarian values maximizing well being. If you ask them why, although they may attempt at an explanation, what it really comes down to will always be that there is some core value (ought statement) that they take as a given. That's the fundamental difference between morality and science. Science strives for objectivity, morality can still strive for rationality and coherence but ultimately morality must be founded on some core axiom(s).
Shiningc t1_ivrv984 wrote
As a study of the physical world, science can help morality, but science and morality are a separate matter.
DominicRo t1_iv5y0fd wrote
This is an excellent article.
[deleted] t1_iv6l98j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iv6tny0 wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iv9mvmf wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
AllanfromWales1 t1_iv64fwr wrote
That's a tremendously naive interpretation of how science works. The reality - including things like the reproducibility crisis and citation farming - is a very human endeavour. What science gets done is largely based on who is willing to pay for it, and as often as not the sponsor of the work is looking for a specific outcome, and looks askance at paying for work which doesn't reach the desired conclusion.
Doesn't sound very moral to me.