Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.

−12

glossteam2 t1_iv8012i wrote

Relative morality is called situational ethics, is that what you claim science to be.

3

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.

0

hopeyglass1979 t1_iw42nuo wrote

Sounds like some thinly veiled crypto-fascism couched in a bunch of preening bafflegab, jerkoff.

1