A fine choice for the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I like it precisely because it evicts all of this moral distortion. A false fact is a lie, indeed.

So you like things simple...hmm.

or "undistorted" sorry.

And so individuals, to ascertain virtue, must acquire and examine personal experience? I don't see how it is not one. Is this too laborious for your tastes or something?

Tensions are not something to be avoided

People should be charitable but they should look after themselves and those close to them...it's a powerful tension. There is no rational, objective, systematic way to decide which is right in a situation. Oftentimes there is no clear answer. Systematic, rule based moral codes seek to avoid that tension, and that is their problem:

1) Being selfish is a vice
2) Being selfish is good; charity is not a virtue

Some people believe these or say they do, but they are too blunt and extreme for most.The utilitarian "resolution" is just smoke and mirrors. If we should create the maximum well being, then we should be dedicating our lives to helping the 3rd world. That's too much like (1) for most people, so they come up with some argument or rationalization to get out of it while preserving their belief that they are a utilitarian.

We should not tell ourselves that we've resolved the tension, that we have a clear cut, consistent, rational, logical moral system.


I'm not sure if this sounds like a non-sequitur to you but I think we're talking past each other with this rule stuff. A belief is not a rule.

[Montmorency]

So you like things simple...hmm.

I like to keep the unnecessary and unhelpful at a remove.

If we should create the maximum well being, then we should be dedicating our lives to helping the 3rd world.

The problem with utilitarianism is that value is internal and personal, as I said. Case in point: I don't see how "helping" the 3rd world per se would create the maximum well-being.

A belief is not a rule.

You have an approach to solving, or approximating solutions to, moral dilemmas - a specific prescribed approach that is not simply "what people do"....I don't suppose we can resolve this. I understand what you're saying, but think you're off on this detail. Let's leave it at that.

[Ironside]

Yes! And just look at the other western countries. No offense.

No taken. Now, please explain to me in wich way creationists, by their actions, are part of making America great.

Dealing with life is not therapy. It's for everyone. Therapy is for people who can't deal with it on their own and for people with serious issues.

Any potentially traumatic experience needs a coping mechanism. Therapy is an outsider training you in a coping mechanism. So even if it's a sort of self medication, learning methods on how to cope is a form of therapy.

We treat those things as big questions because of our religious heritage and our tendency towards mysticism. Not a surprise, since much of scientific motivation originates there. It's like those scientists who spend their time thinking about big bang stuff, they would have gone deep into theology in an earlier time most likely. Not saying they aren't doing legitimate science, but their description of its importance is anything but scientific.

Please tell us what you consider the big questions then. The one about if we have a core, an essense (aka a soul) and how it would work is appearently not a big one. How the mind works isn't a big one. You're a driver in a car, who doesn't feel to need to know anything about the car it self. Only, dealing with life is unexpected, bumpy and gives a dent or two, if you're lucky.

But this is you having the wrong approach again...it's a very good illustration.

The point of studying history is not to acquire knowledge that is as accurate and objective as possible so we can figure out exactly what happened--just like the point of studying humanity isn't to understand how the different parts of the brain interact and the chemical processes, etc.

There's a REASON people read history books that we know were not written with the intention of being accurate accounts of what happened. It's because we're grappling with the problems of our own lives and world and we want to gain insight. The best historians are the ones who have gained that insight. I'm not dissing factual accounts or scholarship or anything, but it's only useful it's not the point.

Read a book.

Seriously, if that's the goal why not simply focus on media? It has the same principle of stories about human nature and deals much more about that insight you mention. Of course the same problem of source checking that occurs in science applies. Only because you find it insightful and amazing doesn't mean that it is.

They used to not make a distinction between science and philosophy, yes? But today we make a distinction. The methods that have been around before that distinction are not really science in our modern sense. Farmers have not been scientists since the dawn of time. People who selected bigger fruit to get seeds from were not genetic engineers, etc.

And the scientific method was vast improvements on both areas, indicating that using science on humanities would do the same. I have to agree on that... Or maybe you had some other point with that. Applying an older method systematically and refining it are indeed principles of the scientific method. Or are you telling that breeding can't be science since it was done before someone applied a scientific method on it?

We should not tell ourselves that we've resolved the tension, that we have a clear cut, consistent, rational, logical moral system.

I'm not sure if this sounds like a non-sequitur to you but I think we're talking past each other with this rule stuff. A belief is not a rule.

And that's one big thing people tries to get out of religion. And you praise religious people for doing it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I like to keep the unnecessary and unhelpful at a remove.

The problem with utilitarianism is that value is internal and personal, as I said. Case in point: I don't see how "helping" the 3rd world per se would create the maximum well-being.

You have an approach to solving, or approximating solutions to, moral dilemmas - a specific prescribed approach that is not simply "what people do"....I don't suppose we can resolve this. I understand what you're saying, but think you're off on this detail. Let's leave it at that.

I certainly have an approach. I don't think it's that specific but that doesn't seem like an important detail to me. It's distinct from the other approaches that I've been criticizing. I think our mutual confusion stems from a different conception of what those other approaches are like.

No taken. Now, please explain to me in wich way creationists, by their actions, are part of making America great.

America isn't that great. But we are at least more skeptical of intellectuals and of technological and social progressivism. Acceptance of strong religious faith and creationism is part of that.

Any potentially traumatic experience needs a coping mechanism. Therapy is an outsider training you in a coping mechanism. So even if it's a sort of self medication, learning methods on how to cope is a form of therapy.

Then we are all therapists

Please tell us what you consider the big questions then. The one about if we have a core, an essense (aka a soul) and how it would work is appearently not a big one. How the mind works isn't a big one. You're a driver in a car, who doesn't feel to need to know anything about the car it self. Only, dealing with life is unexpected, bumpy and gives a dent or two, if you're lucky.

Well, do you really like that analogy? I know very little about cars, most people don't. We do just fine. I learned to drive, not how fuel injection works.

I don't think there's a list of big questions, that's why I've used a general term. Questions of morality, of values, of conceptions of things like honesty, pride, ambition, passion, what is fulfilling, etc...the things that are most important to our lives, the things that generally fall under the category "wisdom" and not "cleverness" or "intelligence" or simply "knowledge". It's not a sociological definition, I'm not conceiving of it simply in terms of the questions that are considered to be big by large groups of people.

If you look at religions around the world you would find many questions they consider huge that you don't. The stuff about "a core, an essence (aka a soul) is one that we inherited from religion and the rejection of religion. As someone who was raised atheist it's not least bit interesting to me--I never believed in heaven, etc.

Read a book.

Seriously, if that's the goal why not simply focus on media? It has the same principle of stories about human nature and deals much more about that insight you mention. Of course the same problem of source checking that occurs in science applies. Only because you find it insightful and amazing doesn't mean that it is.

I don't follow you with the media bit.

Literature is often very fictional. But you understand the value of it? I agree that history should aim at the truth of what happened, but I'm saying the theoretical limitations are not that significant. People overreach in history just as they do in science but that's not relevant to our argument.

And the scientific method was vast improvements on both areas, indicating that using science on humanities would do the same. I have to agree on that... Or maybe you had some other point with that. Applying an older method systematically and refining it are indeed principles of the scientific method. Or are you telling that breeding can't be science since it was done before someone applied a scientific method on it?

Science improves agriculture, therefore it will improve the humanities? That's what I got out of this, is it what you mean?

[Ironside]

America isn't that great. But we are at least more skeptical of intellectuals and of technological and social progressivism. Acceptance of strong religious faith and creationism is part of that.

Fair enough. Would you say that the places of USA where this sceptitism are strongest are the better parts of USA?

Then we are all therapists

In a way. On this matter, only learned techniques fall under science (as do learning and understanding the instinctual ones).

Well, do you really like that analogy? I know very little about cars, most people don't. We do just fine. I learned to drive, not how fuel injection works.

I don't think there's a list of big questions, that's why I've used a general term. Questions of morality, of values, of conceptions of things like honesty, pride, ambition, passion, what is fulfilling, etc...the things that are most important to our lives, the things that generally fall under the category "wisdom" and not "cleverness" or "intelligence" or simply "knowledge". It's not a sociological definition, I'm not conceiving of it simply in terms of the questions that are considered to be big by large groups of people.

I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.

Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?

If you look at religions around the world you would find many questions they consider huge that you don't. The stuff about "a core, an essence (aka a soul) is one that we inherited from religion and the rejection of religion. As someone who was raised atheist it's not least bit interesting to me--I never believed in heaven, etc.

I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.

I don't follow you with the media bit.

Literature is often very fictional. But you understand the value of it? I agree that history should aim at the truth of what happened, but I'm saying the theoretical limitations are not that significant. People overreach in history just as they do in science but that's not relevant to our argument.

And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.

Science improves agriculture, therefore it will improve the humanities? That's what I got out of this, is it what you mean?

Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I do like that anology. You know why? A. I thought you'll like it. B. Passing as a driver without knowing the car is what most people do. You on the other hand wants people to be as good drivers as they can be. And that requires knowing the car. Sounds, traction, engine strength, etc. Fuel injection in this case is the biochemistry.

It's all stuff you learn by driving. Maximizing driving ability is not important.

Wisdom driven? While I really do love the idea, good luck with that (I can suggest more science on the subject though). Also ponder on that one pillar of wisdom is knowledge. Good application of your knowledge is covering quite a bit of what you call wisdom, yes?

I promoted reading history books...clearly I believe knowledge is important. Most scientific knowledge is not important for "wisdom".

I'm finding what your conciousness is and how it works as the more important question actually. Because of its influence and its implications. To keep the car anology, this car can override its driver, force him to take something unwanted into consideration and even replace him with another one. You find this subject boring.

No. It's an interesting subject. I just want to learn about it by driving and watching other people drive and getting verbal advice on driving. You want to understand the fuel injection system.

And? What you read from that historian with insight is coming from his mind. Like every fictional story. One part of good literature is that it succeeds in understanding how a human works. And yes it's very valuable. What I oppose is your claim of it being the only source of insight, so to speak.

Adding the scientific method on top of experience is superior to experience alone. Running without the experince is way more iffy. To backtrack to the original question: What do you consider is science? For me, it's following the scientific method.

I would go back to the music analogy. Do you truly think those questions about the effect of base or frequency on the brain are interesting and offer important insights? Clearly they are insights that you wouldn't get without the scientific method.

[Ironside]

It's all stuff you learn by driving. Maximizing driving ability is not important.

Would we have this conversation if you considered people to be good enough drivers? No.

I promoted reading history books...clearly I believe knowledge is important. Most scientific knowledge is not important for "wisdom".

Most knowledge isn't, but the critical pieces will vary and some of them are yet to be discovered.

No. It's an interesting subject. I just want to learn about it by driving and watching other people drive and getting verbal advice on driving. You want to understand the fuel injection system.

Biochemistry is there for the engineer (intentional implication). The benefits for the driver lies in understanding how the engine as a whole works and the consequences it has for the car.

I would go back to the music analogy. Do you truly think those questions about the effect of base or frequency on the brain are interesting and offer important insights? Clearly they are insights that you wouldn't get without the scientific method.

For the average person, the question might very well be enough with is it good music or not? For a musician, the next questions become more important. What makes this music good? And why does it vary from people to people?

Sure, for most people it's sufficient with the knowledge from books and the most critical facts coming from science, or specilizing on the facts important in your own field. That's not a good reason to scrap science in humanities though.