/lit/ - Literature

fuck off you stupid piss ant troll go back to /sci

It's called a strawman fallacy

>>3998330
oi fuk is that a doge

wait thats a bootleg doge

But isn't philosophy and (some of) the human sciences concerned with those statements that cannot be meaningfully falsified?
Like qualitative assessments about society or speculation about epistemology, or interpretations of history?

comic is a form, not a genre
caricature is a literary device associated with comedy/satire

source: wikipedia

>>3998353
>those statements that cannot be meaningfully falsified?

aka "meaningless" statements?

>>3998369
No, read Quine's two dogmas of empiricism.
The possibility of meaningful falsification has no bearing on the meaningfulness of individual statements.

But if you are a strict empiricist, then yes. But you too are probably deeply attached to a number of statements or networks of statements that cannot be subjected to empirical method. Like morality. Not 'meaningless' in the way you'd use the term.

>>3998357
And which one is the OP's pic?

>>3998378
>Like morality.

Morality does not exist. It is a stupid concept invented by christfags who deny evolution. Humans do not have morals. We are still violent simians.

>>3998392
Damn, son. Read closer. Be smarter.

What I said was that morality cannot be empirically verified, it is not observable or objective. You -might- say that it doesn't exist - because what you mean by existence is 'has objective reality' - which was exactly my point.

but to say that morality doesn't exist in a technical sense is of course meaningless. It is referred to, it is talked about - that is all existence is.

>>3998398
>It is referred to, it is talked about - that is all existence is.

Your definition is retarded. God can be referred to, god can be talked about - therefore he exists? No, fucking no. Existence means being physically observable / having measurable effects.

>>3998403
The difference is that morality refers to a system of beliefs, and as such do not need a physical presence to exist. The word 'god' refers to a supposed entity, and therefore implies concrete existence.
The more apt equivalent would be to say that theology doesn't exist because there is no god - which is of course meaningless. Just like it is ludicrous to say that morality doesn't exist just because you believe that mankind is not inherently moral.

>>3998403
>Existence means being physically observable / having measurable effects.

Not true. Concepts and ideas exist, and they cannot me physically observed and/or measured. For example, when you observe something to be witty, sure there is behavior that may seem witty, but wit in itself cannot be observed or measured. The same goes for morality. Morality in itself exists like humor, wit, horror, etc. These concepts cannot be measured or observed in themselves, and people have different opinions on what constitutes them, but they nevertheless exist.

Now God on the other hand is not a conceptual issue. God is referring to a metaphysical being. That's a whole different ball game, friend.

>>3998412
>morality refers to a system of beliefs

What system of beliefs? What are its contents?

>>3998421
(not the same anon)
There's loads of different systems, but they are essentially concerned with what people should and should not do.

>>3998418
>but they nevertheless exist
Nope.

>>3998421
any system of beliefs about morality. I think it was clear from the context that I was not implying that all morality refers to one system of beliefs.

And I of course do not need to remind you of systems of morality. I'm sure you can think of several. Religious, utilitarian, liberal etc.

>>3998418
>exist, and they cannot me physically observed and/or measured.
That means they don't exist. Or do you also believe in non-interacting ghosts and similar /x/ nonsense?

>humor, wit, horror, etc. These concepts cannot be measured or observed in themselves
Emotions are biochemical reactions resulting in observable behaviour. What's your point? What are the observable effects of morality?

>That's a whole different ball game, friend.
No, it is not. It is the same thing, i.e. nonsense asserted without evidence. Why don't you apply Hitchens' razor?

>>3998431
>What are the observable effects of morality?
Prisons, lawyers, judges, juries, human interaction...

>>3998431
top shitpost

>>3998424
What people should do is dictated by biology. Do you even evolution? Do you even determinism?

>>3998429
>any system of beliefs about morality.
I asked you what "morality" is and you reply with this? Circular logic at its best. "What is banopfbpnbaf? -- It is the belief in banopfbpnbaf." Can your post be more meaningless?

>>3998431
this post made me euphoric

>>3998435
Laws and their enforcement are rationally justified. Their existence serves to maximize economical efficiency. Murdering and stealing is not forbidden because of a magical sky daddy telling you so, but because a society where it doesn't happen is more efficient.

>>3998445
>Their existence serves to maximize economical efficiency.
And why is that desired?

top lel /sci/
top lel
this is coming from a STEM major

>>3998429
>And I of course do not need to remind you of systems of morality. I'm sure you can think of several. Religious, utilitarian, liberal etc.

It's all the same thing. Ethics and aesthetics can both be merged into one conceptual framework.

We set up a spectrum of good/bad, with the concept of good and bad being related to, and extrapolated from, empirical phenomenon. We then apply this concept over the top of empirical events and say "I think this film is good" "I think this action is bad". Christianity and utilitarianism are various structures that propose different methods of using the same concept; but the concept is the same in both.

The question 'does this concept exist' is redundant. It exists as a linguistic framework for describing empirical events, and it doesn't exist as a material object.

>>3998439
No, you asked me what specific moral system I was referring to, and I responded that I was talking about no moral system in particular. You must understand that the details of a moral system is not relevant to this discussion, which - since you seem to be forgetting - is about the ostensible reality of non-observable phenomena.

>>3998431
>That means they don't exist.
Ideas and conceptual frameworks exist without physical observation or measurement. It has nothing to do with ghosts or paranormal activity. It is simply common sense. We, as sentient human beings, have frameworks of ideas that guide our lives: ethics, law, social-norms, and the like. How can you be so dense not to understand that?
>What are the observable effects of morality?
The ideas that actions can be better or worse in character than others is a moral distinction. If I kill you, we would say that is wrong. If I don't kill you, we would say that is the right thing to do. It's really that simple.
>nonsense asserted without evidence.
I gave you evidence for morality, friend. You can choose to recognize it or not; your conception of moral nihilism does not make morality any less real in common sense.

>>3998448
Because it is an evolutionary advantage. But from your post I guess you don't believe in the fact of evolution. Your a christfag, amirite?

>>3998445
>but because a society where it doesn't happen is more efficient
And isn't a society that tells you murdering and stealing is wrong even more efficient?

>>3998450
>the ostensible reality of non-observable phenomena.

They do not exist. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>3998464
Question for you: do ideas exist? Do words exist? Thoughts?

>>3998464
>What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>>3998466
Jesus, man, don't trot out that line. That's conceding that there's no evidence that the concept of morality exists.

>>3998465
>do ideas exist?
Yes, MRI scans indicate that they do
>Do words exist?
Both written and spoken can be empirically observed and measured
>Thoughts?
The same as ideas. We can see neuronal interaction producing thoughts.

>>3998458
Economic efficiency is not an evolutionary advantage. It is desired because we have a discourse about freedom - founded in enlightenment morality - which emphasizes personal freedom over - for example - equality.

Systems of morality, very much divorced from observable phenomena, still dictate our day to day life.

I am not the poster you were responding to on that occasion, by the way. But not everyone who rejects your scientism is religious.

>>3998458
Morality is a physical substance encoded in the gene pool? Looks like we've got a Nobel prize winner over here guys!

>>3998454
>exist without physical observation or measurement.
Like ghosts, spirits and demons?

>It is simply common sense.
Appeal to common sense is a fallacy.

>The ideas that actions can be better or worse in character than others is a moral distinction.
No, it is an objective and rational decision based on what is and what isn't favorable from a scientific point of view.

>I gave you evidence for morality, friend.
Where? I don't see it. You haven't even defined morality yet.

>>3998469
>MRI scans proof of ideas

HAHAHAHAHA

You do realize that the mind is not the same as a brain right? Do you even Nagel's Bat?

You can know literally everything there is to know about a brain, and never know an individual's conscious experience or ideas. I can use all the fMRI and MRI machines I want, but I can never hear or perceive your thoughts, ideas, desires, and the like. Pull your head out of your ass.

>>3998468
>That's conceding that there's no evidence that the concept of morality exists.
No, it's fine. I'm happy to let him have no value judgements. As long as long as someone slaps him in the face every time he says "that book was shit" or "that song is awful," and reminds him that he's supposed to be adhering to total relativism in those areas.

>>3998469
Good. Now, in what sense is the word/thought morality an exception to this?

>>3998458
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

>>3998466
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Modus tollens is a valid rule of inference in classical logic. Also known as proof by contradiction. Did you fail the logic section of the IQ test?

>>3998481
>You do realize that the mind is not the same as a brain right?

You're a few centuries late to the debate.

>>3998474
How can something be 'favorable from a scientific point of view' if it is objective?

>>3998461
No, because that makes no difference.

>>3998470
>Economic efficiency is not an evolutionary advantage.
Of course it is. In an efficient society your offspring is more likely to survive.

>But not everyone who rejects your scientism is religious.
What other reasons are there to reject science?

>>3998472
No, it simply doesn't exist. Genes are selfish. Did you not read Dawkins?

>>3998481
>Nagel
Top lel. Nagel is the laughing stock of philosophy,

"Nagel's academic golden years are less peaceful than he might have wished. His latest book, Mind and Cosmos (Oxford University Press, 2012), has been greeted by a storm of rebuttals, ripostes, and pure snark. "The shoddy reasoning of a once-great thinker," Steven Pinker tweeted. The Weekly Standard quoted the philosopher Daniel Dennett calling Nagel a member of a "retrograde gang" whose work "isn't worth anything—it's cute and it's clever and it's not worth a damn."

Nagel is diffident about his ideas. Take this sentence, which packs four negatives into 25 words: "I am not confident that this Aristotelian idea of teleology without intention makes sense, but I do not at the moment see why it doesn't." Mind and Cosmos is full of such negatively phrased assertions. If you're going to make a controversial claim, it helps to do so positively. It also helps to enlist distinguished allies. Nagel has done nothing of the sort, and writes in a convoluted style that made him sound unconvinced of his own ideas.

The numerous critics have focused much of their ire on Nagel's numerous unsubstantiated claims. That has left him open to a number of obvious rebuttals. The biologist H. Allen Orr, at the University of Rochester, pointed, in regard to his cosmic-consciousness evolution theory, that many species become less complex—parasites, for example, after learning how to steal resources from their hosts. And many species, such as sharks, have been happy to stay just the way they are for millions of years. If nature has goals, it certainly seems to have many and consciousness would appear to be fairly far down on the list."

Nagel apparently felt it was acceptable to ignore all science. "Philosophy cannot generate such explanations," wrote Nagel; "it can only point out the gaping lack of them." But there is no gaping lack of attempts to supply them. "He's done so little serious homework," says Michael Ruse. "He just dismisses origin-of-life studies without any indication that he's done any work on it whatsoever." In short, Mind and Cosmos is not only negative but underpowered, as if Nagel had brought a knife to a shootout."

>>3998481
Oh wow

>>>/x/

>>3998484
he did, it's not the first time this retard uses that phrase

he definitely doesn't understand it nor knows its origins

>>3998481
Isn't that basically a rehash of what Wittgenstein said about Lions?

>>3998479
Just because the word "god" exists, doesn't imply that a deity is real. Why do you fail at logic?

>>3998481
>consciousness
Back to >>>/x/ please.

>>3998486
>How can something be 'favorable from a scientific point of view' if it is objective?
The same way 4 is greater than 3. Is mathematics another field you don't understand?

>>3998493
I'm not saying that the mind doesn't come from the brain; we have a LOT of evidence to support that. It's just that they are not the same thing in essence. Take a look at a brain on Google images and tell me if you can see Qualia.

>>3998500
Qualia cannot be observed, therefore they don't exist. It's like talking about non-interacting spirits. Useless and anti-scientific.

>>3998498
>>consciousness
>Back to >>>/x/ please.
Back to >>>/sci/ please.

>>3998492
>ad hominem

>>3998484
>Modus tollens is a valid rule of inference in classical logic. Also known as proof by contradiction.

What's that got to do with your universe of discourse?

>>3998493
he would have a point if he stated that consensus science is still hugely ignorant when it comes to conciousness

statement that brain/mind = c0mput3rz is pseudoscientific

>>3998487
>What other reasons are there to reject science?

Well, I'm not religious, but I don't believe that the methods of the sciences can be applied to areas and statements outside of the purview of empiricism - and I don't believe, like you seem to, that these questions, of morality, interpretation, philosophy, can be reduced to a state where they are empirically verifiable, because we cannot extricate ourselves from the value-systems that dictate our behaviour.
And I never said I rejected science. Science of course has its place, and I very much welcome science's gradual eradication of some of the bullshit in the humanities, like psychology and epistemology with the progress of neurology.

>>3998498
A deity is more than just a category. See >>3998412. Morality isn't. The word simply refers to the category of ideas about what people should and shouldn't do.

>>3998500
>Take a look at a brain on Google images and tell me if you can see Qualia.

>mfw

>>3998503
Qualia exists just like anything else exists within the mind. Would you say that dreams don't exist? It's the same concept.

>>3998503
>>3998503
The thought experiment was originally proposed by Frank Jackson as follows:

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? [4]

>>3998507
>areas and statements outside of the purview of empiricism
These do not exist. If you disagree, please show me any kind of empirical evidence of their existence.

>And I never said I rejected science
By posting nonsense blatantly contradicting basic principles of science and rationality you are denying the validity of science.

>>3998487
he said scientism, not science you dumbfuck

read a book

>>3998510
>Implying Hume is still relevant

There's more to life than experience, friend. Just because you can't see Dark Matter and Qualia does not mean that they do not exist.

>>3998502
It provides better alternatives than mystical qualia.

But I suppose we'll have our answer once the Blue Brain Project finishes up their work on full-brain emulations.

>>3998507
If something did exist external to empirical observation, it is having absolutely no effect upon the physical, otherwise it would be detectable by empirical observation.

>>3998508
>The word simply refers to the category of ideas about what people should and shouldn't do.
I already addressed this fallacy. What people should and shouldn't do is deterministically dictated by biology and does neither require nor imply a sky fairy.

>>3998511
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you want to believe in non-interacting ghosts, /x/ is over there ---->

>>3998512
The thought experiment is outdated and retarded. Color perception is not magical. Colors are wave lengths of light and every brain of a not colorblind person will process them exactly the same way.

>my fucking face when dumbass empiricists neglect Plato and consequently fail to realize that ideas are as real as physical objects

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO

>>3998487
>Of course it is. In an efficient society your offspring is more likely to survive.
completely groundless

>>3998519
Those are the same thing. "Scientism" is just a pejorative buzzword used by religiontards in their anti-science propaganda.

>/lit/ falling for another troll

/lit/, YOU BRING THIS UPON YOURSELVES YOU DUMBASSES. WISE UP. WE GET SO MANY TROLLS BECAUSE YOU -ALWAYS- FALL FOR THEM.

>>3998525
>What people should and shouldn't do is deterministically dictated by biology
And yet people have ideas about what they should or shouldn't do, no?

>>3998522
Yes, but I wasn't talking about whether this phenomena could be detected by empiricism, of course it could, but whether it can be accounted for purely empirically. And I believe that there are many things in the world that cannot.

>>3998525
>will process them
And there you imply a subjective component

>>3998521
>But I suppose we'll have our answer once the Blue Brain Project finishes up their work on full-brain emulations
nah, you are already stealthily inserting your presupposed conclusions into the question. what we might find out with this "project" is whether we actually are aware of all the components and relations of the so called "mind" and "conciousness" and "brain" at this time. Then we will have a shot at knowing whether this "experiment"/"project" was actually trying to answer the question/problem we put through in the first place

this reductionistic approach isn't a virtue, it just imposes an artificial narrative on the whole issue

>>3998525
>What people should and shouldn't do is deterministically dictated by biology and does neither require nor imply a sky fairy.
nah, you presuppose shitloads of values with this, such as existence > nonexistence, which is completely groundless

>>3998537
I implied the exact opposite. Subjectivity cannot exist because the brain is deterministic and objectively obeys the laws of physics.

>>3998546
Existence is not a value.

>>3998525
>I already addressed this fallacy. What people should and shouldn't do is deterministically dictated by biology and does neither require nor imply a sky fairy.
No, you already ducked the point and you're just ducking it again. 'Morality' is simply the category of 'ideas about what people should or shouldn't do'. Thus, you believe that morality is determined. That's fine- to a determinist everything is determined, so of course morality is. But why do you insist on arguing that morality doesn't exist?

>>3998534
>of course it could, but whether it can be accounted for purely empirically.
Of course it can. You are saying that it is being incorrectly perceived because the whole function isn't detectable by empiricism - that some aspects of the dependant origination lay external to the observable, so we have the effect but an unknowable cause. This is obviously incorrect; in that case the 'unknown' IS having an effect upon the observable, and is detectable and no longer unknown.

>>3998529
oh, wow, i can smell fedora from the distance

see your shrink >>>/x/

>mfw scientards think only material reality is real
>mfw scientards fail to realize that "reality" and "real" are conceptual, and as such by their own standards do not exist
>mfw they could use this as a jumping off point for a kind of Buddhist, "reality cannot be spoken about, words do not correlate with reality", but don't because they're retarded

funny

>>3998549
The laws of physics aren't objective by any means. You're just dodging the point.

>>3998550
>But why do you insist on arguing that morality doesn't exist?
The burden of proof is on you. Please show me the evidence that it exists.

>>3998553
Reality is by definition the entirety of things that have objectively measurable or observable effects. By denying this, buddhism is anti-intellectual.

>>3998554
The laws of physics are objective. If you disagree, you are free to disprove them. Show me where gravity is wrong.

>>3998549
>Existence is not a value.
existence is a prerequisite for values, without an agent there are no values

>What people should and shouldn't do is deterministically dictated by biology and does neither require nor imply a sky fairy.
You are invoking some ridiculous definition of values. Can you have values or morals without being aware of it? Does E. coli have values?

>>3998559
>If you disagree, you are free to disprove them.
>shifting the burden of proof

>>3998559
>Please show me the evidence that it exists.
See the post you just replied to.
>'Morality' is simply the category of 'ideas about what people should or shouldn't do'.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Please don't duck it this time.

>>3998551
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I can own that. I clearly misused the expression 'accounted for'.

What I meant was that there are are things that cannot be discussed scientifically. They originate from observations about the world, but attain a level of abstraction where the scientific method cannot fully describe them. These include morality, hermeneutics, literature and so on.

>>3998559
>Reality is by definition the entirety of things that have objectively measurable or observable effects.

You measure measurable things (that is a tautology), but this "entirety" of which you speak is not demonstrable, it is conceptual, metaphysical. You have added the concept of this "entirety", "reality", on solid "measurable things".
If you are saying that things that we define have a kind of metaphysical existence then I agree with you, but by that admission you must also agree that morality has an existence.

>>3998549
Physics isn't deterministic

>>3998561
>Can you have values or morals
No, you can't because they don't exist.

>>3998562
Do it. Show me where you think gravity is wrong.

>>3998565
>See the post you just replied to.
Baseless assertions are not evidence.

>>3998573
>please don't duck it this time

>No, you can't because they don't exist.

uhh, you have any proof on that?

>>3998573
>prove me wrong

>>3998573
>No, you can't because they don't exist.

So why aren't you killing the disabled and mentally ill right now?

>>3998577
...or we could try a different tack. What do you mean by morality? Do you disagree with my definition, or with any dictionary definition of the word?

>>3998568
>is not demonstrable, it is conceptual, metaphysical
Observational evidence is neither conceptual nor metaphysical.

>>3998569
Do you even understand the inequation you posted? Do you realize that it has nothing to do with the statement in your post?

>>3998586
Because humor is an economically productive tool for a growing society

>>3998588
>do you even science le funny meme.jpg

>>3998581
Yeah, that's what your argument boils down to.

>>3998586
Because I have better things to do.

>>3998587
>What do you mean by morality?
I do not use meaningless words.

>>3998588
>Observational evidence is neither conceptual nor metaphysical.

I defy you to find any empirical evidence that "reality" exists. You can find evidence of the existence of objects and the existence of relationship between objects, but you cannot find evidence of existence itself, and would have to use metaphysics to reason about it.

>>3998588
I'm sorry your too simple to grasp basic concepts

>>3998566
>What I meant was that there are are things that cannot be discussed scientifically.
>They originate from observations about the world
Then they can be discussed scientifically. We have the observation; either we can describe the relationship between cause and effect to give a bayesian probability of future events, or we can see, by the lack of prediction, that we do not know the cause and only have the observable event.

>but attain a level of abstraction where the scientific method cannot fully describe them.
Abstractions are just our descriptions of empirical events. Yes, we always have the underlying scepticism, which is why he have descriptions and not objective 'facts'. It does nothing to alter the observable cause/effect relationship.

>These include morality, hermeneutics, literature and so on.
But we do, and can, discuss these from a scientific perspective. With something like morality, we know that humans have a conceptual moral framework that they superimpose on top of abstracted descriptions of reality. We know that a human can say "I think eating meat is wrong" for a subjective moral value. We can also do a lot to explain 'why' that individual said that. The concept of morality isn't a physical object, but it doesn't put it outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

>>3998594
>Because I have better things to do.
Why is it illegal to kill them?

>>3998594
>Morality does not exist. It is a stupid concept
I refer you to your first post:
>Morality does not exist. It is a stupid concept
So not only did you use the word, you referred to it as a 'concept'. If you attach no meaning to it, how did you do that?

>>3998599
Because laws are irrational

>>3998594
You made the claim that physical laws are objective fact dude.

>>3998602
Wouldn't that contradict the dinosaur fossil theory?

>>3998601
Ooooops, double quote. Meant to refer to
>I do not use meaningless words

>>3998597
>find any empirical evidence that "reality" exists.
That's a retarded question. We observe reality. Are you the guy on the right in OP's pic?

>>3998598
>your too simple
>your
Cool story, /b/ro.

>>3998599
Ask /pol/.

>>3998607
uh what

>>3998608
/pol/ believes in morality.

>>3998608
I observe morality too

>>3998601
>you referred to it as a 'concept'
I referred to it as a "stupid concept" because it is meaningless.

>>3998603
I was stating a fact. It is you who disagrees with facts.

>>3998614
Oh wow, they're even more retarded than I thought.

>>3998618
Can you verify the fact?

>>3998618
>it is meaningless
So what were you referring to? How did you recognise the word? And, hey, just for fun, let's ask again: how do you define it?

>inb4 I don't, I use words that have no definition all the time

>>3998608
Nice counterpoint. Please enlighten yourself on basic scientific principles before you go spouting more nonsense

>>3998622
Well, it's a theory, but a consistently observable one

>>3998630
read popper

>>3998625
>How did you recognise the word?
By neuronal processing of visual perception.

>how do you define it?
Why would I define YOUR nonsense words?

>>3998626
>ad hominum

>>3998637
>Why would I define YOUR nonsense words?
Because you recognise and use them too. You obviously attach some meaning to the word, which is how you recognised it and started arguing about it. You're spectacularly obtuse, anon.

>>3998593
Good response man. This discussion has branched off from the discussion about whether the only meaningful statements are those statements that can be falsified.And you are obviously not that original guy. I don't think we have much more than a semantic disagreement.

I acknowledge that we can observe much of our behaviour relating to the supposedly unfalsifiable, and that we can establish, with some probability, the causes of held beliefs. But there is are everyday debates about the quality of beliefs, methods or taste that just do not come under the scope of science. Much of society rests on unfalsifiable assumptions of this nature.

It's a comic

\thread

>>3998543
Way to say absolutely nothing

>>3998586
jesus fucking christ, you're like the an obnoxious guido that crashes a book club meeting

>>3998659
I'm intrigued that this happens to you often enough to use it as a metaphor...

So is /sci/ the gayest board on 4chan?

>>3998659
It's a shame you lack the maturity to make an argument and refrain from pointless insults.

>>3998663
+1

To answer OP's question: it's caricature. Caricature is a cartoon representing an idea or image in ridicule or exaggeration whereas comics are sequential narratives.

Existence of morals depends on the definitions of both existence and morals. That anon never provided them hence the discussion is pointless.

>>3998678
They defy definition because they don't exist

>>3998678
'Morality' is a blanket term for a group of behaviors that seemingly defy self-preservation, but in the long run help to propagate the species or society.

>>3998681
look dude, I am a non-cognitivist. I think morals, as expressed by fellow human beings do not express (philosophical) propositions - that is, the underlying content of those propositions is neither true or false. But the morals, as expressions of human personal, arbitrary, non-objective values, as figures of speech called moral language DO exist and it can be empirically proven.

>>3998682
that's like saying "science is a blanket term for a group models and equations that help the species or society to propagate in the long run", except science has nothing to do with propagating the species and when the first scientists started doing science they hadn't survival in mind at all, they were after something else (a kind of truth). The same goes for the first moralists - they weren't thinking about the survival of the species, they were after something else (a kind of truth).

>>3998682
>'Morality' is a blanket term for a group of behaviors
ok

>that seemingly defy self-preservation, but in the long run help to propagate the species or society.
non-sequitur

morals is an anachronistic name for personal values (and there are only personal values since there is no objective authority)

>>3998694
>that's like saying "science is a blanket term for a group models and equations that help the species or society to propagate in the long run"

Not really.

>The same goes for the first moralists

'Moralists' did not invent 'morals', they just tried to describe what was already there, sometimes poorly. Your statement does not in any way contradict my definition.

>>3998559
>Show me where gravity is wrong.
Center of a black hole.

>>3998717
Interesting, anything beyond the event horizon of a black hole is not accessible to empirical methods of investigation. What sort of implications does that have?

>>3998731

It really doesn't imply anything that wasn't inherent to the scientific method to begin with. If you can't make observations of it, it's not scientifically describable and your only means of investigation into it has to be studying its consequences.

>>3998530

> implying we don't know that this is a troll thread
> implying answering anyway just for the lulz isn't /lit/'s modus operandi