/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8152968
>Psychology and sociology gives you the facts
And facts are great. But you also need practice and exercise as well.

>you left out the crucial game theory which is a framework for interpreting value systems. There is plenty of practice to be had there, and it comes from math, not philosophy.
I'm not sure what you would gain from mathematics in the way of rationally and civilly coming to a mutual understanding and compromise in the face of value disagreements. You have to actually frame and discuss these matters about which you care. Ethics, a major branch of philosophy, is literally about what is right and wrong. What I've personally found is that in the gauntlet of discussing what is right and wrong is where you discover what you think is right and what is wrong.

I've never looked into game theory, but I'm going to make that one of the focal points of my research in the future. Thank you for making me aware of its existence.

>Citation? This is actually interesting.
Don't have an exact citation for any single study, but in Jesse Prinz' "The Emotional Construction of Morals" (source of a lot of the arguments for my senior thesis on Moral Relativism), he brings up various studies:

Heekeren et al. (2003)
Berthoz et al. (2002)
Greene et al. (2001) (brain scans during trolley dilemmas)
Wheatley and Haidt (2005)
and another study by Greene et al. which was cited as "forthcoming" (for context, Prinz' book was published in 2007)

I can post quotes later on if you want, if this thread is still up when I get back.