/sci/ - Science & Math

picture looks shopped.

>wordswordswords
>Science & Math

cool.

>>2886135
No i was there and i took it with my camera it isnt shoopd

Would you rather the nazi's had the abombs?

PS omfg what the hell is that in the captcha bar

So disecting dead people is bad?

>>2886122
>>2886122
this picture has pixels, it must has photoshopped.

Not even a little trolled...

>>2886171

>So disecting dead people is bad?
It is.
Let the dead have their peace.

>>2886179
So you are against organ transplants as well?

>>2886183

Not necessarily.

>>2886179
I actually want to be ground up and composted when I die. It is the most natural and useful way to use a body.

>>2886201

>most natural
Man is not fully enmeshed in nature.
Turn towards the heavens. Look to your true home.
We are not mere beasts as you would have it.

moral truth makes people work beter, scientific truth makes tools work better...

practical reason is prior to theoretical reason for intelligent beings, but it is not a substitute for theoretical reason and cannot inform it

>>2886204
I fart in your general direction.

>>2886204
Get a grip dude, there is nothing special about this leather-sack filled with meat. Composting is good for the dirt and the nitrogen, calcium and other components of this temporary agglomeration of biomass can eventually nurture plants and other animals. I think that is the greatest, most natural use anyone can put my dead body to. There is nothing magical about a dead body. In fact I would not even care if it was used by necrophiliacs before it is composted.

>>2886227

I have one disagreement with your post:

Skin. Not leather.

People are naturally greedy, hateful and dangerously curious. Even if there are moral laws outlawing acting on those traits, there will always be some who ignore those laws. Personally I think knowledge is more important than anything.

>>2886227
This. I want my corpse to be used for transplants when I die, after which I don't care what happens. The best course of action would probably be to dump it in a forest somewhere. This could upset some of my family/friends though, so I don't know.

>>2886238

I've never understood the opposition to organ transplants. It's not like you're going to be using them anymore.

>>2886234
>>2886234
yeah, I know. i just felt like it sounded nicer. poetic licence you know.

>>2886244

True, it did have a pleasant sound to it, in conjunction with the rest of your statement.

>morality
>truth

pick one

>>2886274

As if these are mutually exclusive.

>>2886274
Yeah, morality is derived from truth.

Bunch of apes, learn to communicate and use tools. Might makes right turns into the golden rule. How? Simple. You do something selfish, you will get beat down by a bunch of apes with tools. Better internalize the golden rule.

Morality is subjective, therefore not truth.

Hippies need to all kill themselves.

>>2886179
>Let the dead have their peace.

lol fuck off

>>2886548
You lack respect.

Sam Harris is a faggot.

>>2888660
oh just die!

>>2888651

You're delusional.

>>2888670
Sorry, but my position is axiomatically, self-evidently right, and disagreeing with me would be akin to savagery.

>>2886274
>>2886523
You'd think supposedly 'scientific' people would have a basic knowledge of ethics, but nope.

>>2886523

Pain is subjective and thus not true.

You're confusing the two definitions of subjective. One refers to a matter that depends entirely upon the subject, the other refers to a matter that only effects the subject. Pain, like morality, only effects the subject or subjects, but it is still objective.

>>2888716
sorry but i didn't understand 7 of the words in that senetcne.

>>2888716

Ignore this guy. He's mocking my argument for Harris' philosophy. Badly.

>>2888670

Guy who was just arguing with EK about portal coffee arcing.

Sam Harris is such a faggot. Ive seen him talk at my university once. He was faggging the whole place up.

>>2888716
sorry but i didn't understand 7 of the words in that senetcne.

>>2886122
>Moral truth is far more important than scientific truth.

I believe that they are in fact the same thing. Truths about morality can be found using the scientific method, and thus are scientific truths.

>Modern physics threw the question of morality out the window and jumped in bed with the government and military to build the most horrible objects ever created. We now live under the shadow of those creations.

"Modern Physics" didn't create the atom bomb. Brilliant scientists and engineers created the bomb using modern physics. Modern Physics isn't a group of people that decided to be amoral.

Sam Harris is a blithering idiot for thinking morality can be derived from science. Lost all respect for the man when he committed this huge philosophical blunder. His performance in debate against Williams Lane Craig, despite going up against fucking retarded religion, was pathetic as well.

>>2888765
>implying the atom bomb hasn't saved more lives than it has killed

>>2888774

Have you read his book?

>implying moral truth isn't fundamentally arbitrary

>>2888775

No, I agree with that. I think the atom bomb did end the war much faster than any other means.

>>2888779
Yes. So what do you choose? To be a beast? Or to ponder and see if you can apply your will towards greater good?

>>2888785
>>2888785

Wait, maybe this is tangent.

I would argue that even if the atomic bomb saved more lives than it killed, the people it killed were innocent civilians and dropping the bomb was more morally questionable then engaging an army.

>>2888749
What? If anything, I'm mocking Harris' retarded position. I don't even know what your personal argument is, you pompous fuck, but if it's based on The Moral Blandscape, then I wouldn't be too surprised if it's the same self-righteous, scientifically indefensible nonsense all Harris fans like to regurgitate.

>>2888774
>Sam Harris is a blithering idiot for thinking morality can be derived from science.
>Lost all respect for the man when he committed this huge philosophical blunder. His performance in debate against Williams Lane Craig, despite going up against fucking retarded religion, was pathetic as well.
>>2888774

>>2888793
This distinction is entirely subjective.

>>2888793
>greater good
>implying this isn't just popular preference

>>2888778
No. Don't plan to. Discussed it with intelligent people who have read that book.
>>2888794
MAD has certainly prevented ugly wars. The dropping of two atom bombs over Japan didn't.
>>2888803
Yeah, I guess these days it's maximum trolling to say that you can't logically derive an ought from an is. Fucktard.

>>2888816

you've been trolled

>>2888819
Maybe. But this version of the coolface sucks.

>>2888799

Sorry. I just recognized the terms "axiomatic" "self evident" as coming from an argument I had about this here a week ago. I don't recall Harris using those words, but I do remember me using them.

If you would actually like to hear my take on Harris' philosophy, please ask, but until then stop making such aggravated statements.

>>2886122
Agreed, since honest scientific inquiry is needed to even do science. Epistemology comes 1st.

Im not trolling. Just want to say I dont like This Samuel Harrison figure either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Harrison

Jokes aside Sam Harris is a fag.

>>2888785
>I think the atom bomb did end the war much faster than any other means
And? This makes it the proper course of action for some reason?

"moral truth" is nothing more than a justification for the course of action that an individual has decided will be most beneficial to whatever group he most closely identifies with and, therefore in his mind, himself. "good" and "evil" do not exist except as conceptualiziations of behaviors that an individual percieves as benefcial, and behaviors that he percieves as harmful. Therefore, modern physics did not throw morality out the window, but rather was in a sufficiently different situation from you that what it concluded as the morally correct thing to do, you now call morally horrible. Both you and modern physics are adhering to "moral truth"

>>2888816

The is/ought distinction is actually ignored in science itself. In science we say we ought to value the truth and physical evidence, in mathematics we say we ought to value logic, in medicine we say that we ought to value the health of the patient.

>>2888819

>>2888816
>MAD has certainly prevented ugly wars. The dropping of two atom bombs over Japan didn't.

From what I have heard, the Japanese were an incredibly patriotic people. Should it have ever come to a land war, the Japanese would have armed every man woman and child. It would not have been pretty.

I'm not saying that innocent civilians should have been bombed, I'm saying that it was the lesser of two evils.

>>2888837
You can say whatever you want. You just cannot derive.
Ought like "Obey the ZFC when doing mathematics" or "Make testable predictions" when confirming hypotheses are not in need of justification. Harris dubious claims about morality, on the other hand, are.

>>2888716
Tautology is so... tautologous?

>>2888870

>Implying consequentialism is good

>>2888870
Well, if an unconditional surrender supersedes a massive loss of civilian live and if you strongly believe all counter factual scenarios would've been worse,...

>>2888874
>are not in need of justification

How so? Why do we not need to justify our valuing of the truth? Why do we not need to justify our valuing of logic?

This is a serious question and understanding the answer is important.

>>2888825
>I just recognized the terms "axiomatic" "self evident" as coming from an argument I had about this here a week ago. I don't recall Harris using those words, but I do remember me using them.
I see. I guess you just gotta take my word for it that I was really just paraphrasing (and obviously mocking) Harris' tenor in response to the criticism of TML. What pisses me off about him and his views in general, though, isn't just the fact that I completely disagree with his philosophical stance on morality, but also the way he tends to dismiss people, who advocate a more relativistic approach, as stupid at best and as savages at worst.

>>2888886

Sorry, I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject. What other scenarios could have been employed?

>>2888870
>Should it have ever come to a land war, the Japanese would have armed every man woman and child. It would not have been pretty.

>This what Americans actually believe to justify their bloodthirsty, murderous insanity.

>>2888906

Oh, I see. Unfortunately I can't justify the man's attitude, all I can do is defend my stance on the matter, which I do admit is derived from his philosophy.

>>2888916

Well please, tell me what you think would have happened.

>>2888916
>hasn't read anything about the japanese in WWII and how savagely they fought in every battle for land that wasn't even sacred to them

"Moral truth"... What "truth"?

I'm fucking sick'n tired of these fucking trolls with their ubergeneral statements that have nothing to do with the subjects this board deal with.

The most pathetic ones are those who are experts in "ethics" and anal-yse the semantics of "moral statements". Hahahhaha, you spasmodic idiots, since when was ethics about truth-telling!

"Morality" has for most of human history been an issue of covering individual asses and deflecting the focus on behaviour in community on other stuff than those behviours which were tabooo/not spoken of/forbidden to even write about in any "philosophy" book.

Morality is not about "truth".. That's why objective/scientific fact is considered "truth" today, because it has nothing to do with human behaviour per se.

Also saged for not science.

The reason that "modern physics threw the question of morality out the window" was that a critical analysis of morality on scientific grounds would find that it lacks any objective validity. In a world where science involved itself in philosophical debates, religion and everything built upon it would be destroyed, human life would be devalued and we'd end up in some sort of Ayn Rand dystopia.

Would you rather a world where most people still take morality on faith, or a world with no morality at all?

>>2888938

Morality is of a different sphere than religion. The past 2000 years of secular philosophy has dealt with a secular moral system. Modern morality has nothing to do with religion.
>Would you rather a world where most people still take morality on faith, or a world with no morality at all?

I find that to be a false dichotomy. I would rather have a moral system based on logic and science.

Morality is religious.
>religiousness - devoutness: piety by virtue of being devout
>religion - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;
>religion - an institution to express belief in a divine power
It's all the same; people revere a moral code instead of a god, kind of like Buddhism.

>>2888973

If people hold morality sacred and infallible, then they are doing it wrong, just like people who hold quantum mechanics sacred and infallible.

Imagine I found someone who said that they believed that Copenhagen interpretation was sacred and absolutely true, the first thing we can conclude is that they aren't really a scientist. Similarly with morality. If an action has been demonstrated to be immoral, we can't hold onto it like some kind of religious doctrine.

People do though, and this is why we demand that our scientists be educated and trained to not hold such biases.

>>2889005
>If people hold morality sacred and infallible, then they are doing it wrong
According to you. According to them, they're doing it just right. And you know why? BECAUSE MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE!

>>2889027

In what way are they subjective? There is actually two different meanings to the word.

>>2888929
>objective/scientific fact is considered "truth" today, because it has nothing to do with human behaviour per se.

you wish, sciencefan. you wish.

>>2889005
>demonstrated to be immoral
Oh boy... how would you falsify the immorality of an action?

>>2889032
In the sense that morality is inherently tied to personal bias and opinion, and a matter of emotional, not rational evaluation.

<span class="math">\mathbb{ITT: people who have never read The Moral Landscape and wouldn't understand it even if they did}[/spoiler]

>>2889050
>>2889032
>>2889027
>mfw people still employ the subject object distinction

>>2889070
hurr durr you have never read the ego and its own and might is right so you can't even comment on anything derp

the next wave in science is human experimentation

<span class="math">herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]

>>2889042

If the action is based on illogical principles and demonstrably promotes the misery of others.

>>2888973
>Get on /sci/
>"Oh boy I can't wait to satisfy my curiosity about the universe"
>see someone saying morality is religious

Well, I guess I'll just go back to watching some documentaries and browsing /v/

<span class="math">herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp}}}}}[/spoiler]
<span class="math">derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp_{herp_{derp_{herp_{derp_{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">derp^{herp^{derp^{herp^{derp^{herp}}}}}[/spoiler]

>>2889130
>implying misery is bad
>implying illogic is bad

>>2889050

For the longest time physics and astronomy was based on a personal bias and opinion. The motion of the stars were regarded as divine entities meddling in the affairs of mortals. It was through a rational framework that we were able to bring these fields into the light of scientific research.

Morality needs this same upgrade.

People do what they feel is right and you take that to mean that there is no right. Imagine if we treated any other field like this. Everyone has an intuitive understanding of basic physics which allows us to interact with the world. But we have learned to disregard our intuitive understanding of physics for a rational and empirical understanding.

Just because people people have a bad understanding of morality now does not mean that we can't have a good understanding of morality.

>>2889142
>implying 'bad' has no meaning

>>2889161
>implying it doesn't actually mean something like "I don't like that. Stop it!"

>>2889130
So? If I steal from somebody it will make them feel lousy but it will make me better off. Can't reconcile that.

>>2889180

Your action implies a zero sum game, when in fact there are non zero sum actions that can benefit you both.

Furthermore you can't logically justify your well being over his.

>>2889200

The notion of preference does not exist in logical space.

>>2889200
>Your action implies a zero sum game, when in fact there are non zero sum actions that can benefit you both.
So?
>Furthermore you can't logically justify your well being over his.
You can't logically justify eating. This is a philosophical dead end, kind of like solipsism - okay, what now?

>>2889217

I can logically justify eating because I value the continuation of my life. It's true I can't logically justify this value, but then again, you can't justify valuing logic, or truth, or health, or anything else that's useful. Valuing these are axioms upon which we base our entire outlook on life, especially in science.

We can not logically justify axioms by definition, however they are self evident because not valuing things such as logic lead to unpleasant ends.

>>2889247
>I can logically justify eating because I value the continuation of my life. It's true I can't logically justify this value.
erm
>valuing other people's health is an axiom
it's time to stop posting.

>>2889262

Why don't you just explain what the problem is instead of just telling me to go away?

>>2889247

I value unpleasant ends.

i detect psychopathy in this thread
>>2889050
>>2889027
>>2888973
>>2888929
>>2888906
>>2888831
>>2888816
>>2888804
>>2888799
>>2888774
>>2888752
>>2888716
>>2888660
>>2886532
>>2886523
>>2886236

>>2889268


I can logically justify killing innocent children because I value the termination of innocent lives. It's true I can't logically justify this value, but then again, you can't justify valuing logic, or truth, or health, or anything else that's useful. Valuing these are axioms upon which we base our entire outlook on life, especially in science.

We can not logically justify axioms by definition, however they are self evident because not valuing things such as logic lead to unpleasant ends.

>>2886227

This is what happens when you think we're just molecules with no soul.

But hey, when you die, your body can be thrown in the woods to become food for wild animals. Your business, not mine.

>>2889295
I don't think you know what psychopathy means. Pointing out that morality is subjective certainly isn't a symptom.

>>2889295

It's funny because the existence of psychological illness is dependent on the moral preference of the day. Remember when homosexuality was a disease?

>>2889317

Ceased to become an illness when gay pressure groups demanded that they reclassify it.

>>2889299
Taking something someone says and replacing words isn't a debate method.

lrn2debate less desperately plz

>>2889308
>Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with abnormally immoral conduct despite an ability to appear normal.
being incapable of understanding that the appropriate treatment of sentient beings, AKA morality, cannot be determinely objectively, AKA by scientific inquiry, but on can only be determined subjectively, AKA however you like, matches quite well with the definition of psychopathy.

>>2889326

Reductio ad absurdum

Also all argument is vulgar. I don't engage in debate.

>>2889295
Go eat a dick faggot. You haven't addressed any argument.

>>2889333
Because it has not been determined objectively, it will never be? Look at how far we've come in the last two millennia. You shouldn't philosophically hamsting future humans by assuming they'll act as irrationally as the ones of today.

>>2889343
actually: <span class="math">{~}^{~^{I have}}[/spoiler]

>>2889155
>Morality needs this same upgrade.
No, it doesn't. It probably *would* need one, if we actually found morality to be an objectively measurable thing, but that's not the case, so an upgrade would be unwarranted. Calling it an axiom in every other post doesn't make it one, by the way.

>People do what they feel is right and you take that to mean that there is no right.
No, I take the fact that "right" has yet to be proven to exist outside of personal evaluation as an indication that it might indeed be a purely subjective concept.

>Just because people people have a bad understanding of morality now does not mean that we can't have a good understanding of morality.
This is propped up by the entirely unproven notion that morality is *not* a normative concept, which, again, I have yet to see any evidence for.

>>2889333
Yeah, that's total bullshit. Moral relativism is not the same as having no morals at all, or lacking empathy, or whatever worthless strawman you want to pull out of your ass.

>>2889299

Well played, sir.

As an initial reaction I would say that while axioms can not be logically justified, they can be self evident.

Consider an axiom we use in mathematics, namely one of Peano's axioms: If A is a number then the successor of A is also a number. We accept this not because of some logical proof, but because it is self evident. Furthermore, adopting the opposite claim is obviously unhelpful. If we were to adopt the opposite claim, or negate this claim then 2 would not be a number because it follows 1, which is a number.

Now consider our two axioms: Valuing your continued life, and Murdering innocents. Valuing your life is useful and self evident because not doing so can't be good for you. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer, but if you don't value your life, or see why you should value your life, then at the moment I can't think of anything say to you. I'll have to think about it for a bit.

What is the self evident nature of Killing Innocent people? If you say that it is self evident, are you being honest with me?

>>2889308
>Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with abnormally immoral conduct despite an ability to appear normal.
being incapable of understanding that the appropriate treatment of sentient beings, AKA morality, can be determinely objectively, AKA by scientific inquiry, but instead thinks that it can only be determined subjectively, AKA however you like, matches quite well with the definition of psychopathy.

>>2889381
AND WORKING TOO HARD WILL GIVE YOU A HEART ATTACK
AKA AKA AKA
YOU OUGHTA KNOW BY NOW

>>2889367
moral relativism is just a misnomer used to disguise the fact that you're a psychopath. either that or you're just incredibly retarded

>>2889324

The classification changed because gays forced their way into mainstream culture. The biological reality of the homosexual still exists, however it is no longer considered an evil reality.

>>2889333
Lol, you're either a troll or very incoherent.

1. Psychopathy no longer exists. It's called anti-social personality disorder. And *newsflash* mental illness is a pattern of behaviour which runs against culturally normative patterns of behaviour. So it's pretty much social-political how these "disorders" are decided.

2. Empathy is common in many animals, but so is conflict and war. So empathy is not something general in any individual towards ALL the individuals of a species. It depends on context, faggot. You're not expected to be empathic with someone who dehumanised you or is your enemy in a war.
So, Empathy itself is subjective, not objective. People can choose towards whom they are empathic and towards whom they are hostile.

3. Pigs and cows are sentient beings and the existence of our species largely depends on them being tranformed into bacon and sandwhiches, which of course has little to do with empathy. You haven't thought this through much, have you?

>>2889380
you clearly have no idea what axioms are. why can't you just admit that morality is pure preference?

>>2889388
Have an argument, you dumb cunt.

This >>2889408 ws addressed to you >>2889381.

>>2889409

Well, why don't you enlighten me on my mistakes instead of just demanding I adopt your position.

>>2889388

Please stop helping.

>>2889431
Your mistake is a simple one; you are supposing that morality is more than pure preference, all the junk talk about moral axioms is just icing on the cake.

>>2889453
Oh I see. Please tell me how you think that morality is only limited to personal preference.

How about instead of morality I say this: There are actions that either increase or decrease the health of humans. We should value the health of humans. Furthermore, there are actions that either increase or decrease the well being of humans. We should value the well being of humans.

>>2889492

Try again. And this time don't use 'should' or 'ought' to defend your position. Those words presuppose the existence of moral facts.

>>2889492
>Please tell me how you think that morality is only limited to personal preference.
...That's what morality is...
>There are actions that either increase or decrease the health of humans.
Correct.
>We should value the health of humans.
Your preference.
>Furthermore, there are actions that either increase or decrease the well being of humans.
Correct.
>We should value the well being of humans.
Your preference.

>>2889408
>>2889408
>1. Psychopathy no longer exists. It's called anti-social personality disorder.
you open with a false statement
>And *newsflash* mental illness is a pattern of behaviour which runs against culturally normative patterns of behaviour.
you then imply that empathy isn't a real biological function but just a meme of society
>So it's pretty much social-political how these "disorders" are decided.
GJ failing with an entire paragraph

>2. Empathy is common in many animals, but so is conflict and war.
obvious statement that makes no enlightening point
>So empathy is not something general in any individual towards ALL the individuals of a species.
obvious statement that makes no enlightening point
>It depends on context, faggot.
you're supposed to make a point before calling people a faggot
>You're not expected to be empathic with someone who dehumanised you or is your enemy in a war.
another fail paragraph that illuminates nothing about the subjectivity or objectivity of morality

>So, Empathy itself is subjective, not objective.
<facepalm.jpg
>People can choose towards whom they are empathic and towards whom they are hostile.
LOL I CAN CHOOSE WHO I SHOULD TREAT RIGHT B/C MORALS R RELATIVE.. brilliant argument (lack of, that is)

>3. Pigs and cows are sentient beings and the existence of our species largely depends on them being tranformed into bacon and sandwhiches, which of course has little to do with empathy.
it is a lack of empathy, or morality, AKA psychopathy, that allows for these animals to be put through a brutal existence for our consumption
>You haven't thought this through much, have you?
the irony of it all.. i don't even

>>2889519
See
>>2888837

Probe any scientific inquiry to as far as it will go and you will run into this problem.

-Hey scientist, what's up?
*Light travels at a rate of 300,000 km/s
-How do you know that?
*Because we ran a complex experiment using rotating mirrors.
-Why did you run an experiment?
*Because that is how we obtain objective evidence
-Why did you want to get objective evidence?
*Because that is how we get the truth.
-Why do you want to get the truth
*Because we should get the truth
or
*Because I want to get the truth
or
*Because the truth is useful
-Why should we get useful?
*Because it will help us survive
-Why should we want to survive?
*Because we should survive.

There are probably more answers to this, but I can't think of any at the moment. The point is science itself is based on the idea that we should use evidence and logic to get the truth. If you demand that I not use "should" in my argument, why don't you demand the same of the scientific method?

>>2889522

Be that as it may, are they preferences that you disagree with? Would disagreeing with those preferences be a good idea? Would disagreeing with these preferences do us any good?

>>2889572
>>2889572

-Why should we want to survive?
*Because we should survive.
-Why should we survive?
*Because the DNA programmed us to
-Should we do things because the DNA wants us to?
*No we should do things because it makes sense
-Does it make sense to create beings that suffer?
*Yes
-Why?
*Because we should survive
-You're an imbecile.

End of story

You religionfags don't even have your facts straight

Look, when you're dead, your soul isn't in your body anymore.

What happens to your body after that isn't important anymore, it's not you. It was just a vessel.

So what's the big deal if it's ground up and used as compost? It's just a corpse now.

If you can't accept that, you aren't a good christian/jew/whatever the fuck you are.

>>2889535
see
>>2889408

>>2889572

-Why should we want to survive?
*Because we should survive.
Why should we survive?
*Because we chose to survive. Because we prefer to survive.

Preference is the root of morality.

>>2889620

This thread has moved way past that topic. Of which I take responsibility for.

>>2889644

Just because we prefer something does not mean that it is wrong. Is it wrong that I value logic? Is it wrong that I value rational discussion between polite individuals (of which on this board is only sometimes)?

>>2889644
>Preference is the root of morality.
Preference is the root of bigotry.

>>2889535
lol vegan leftie fag detected.

I don't have time/patience to explaint to you in detail what you already fail to understand from lack of information/education.

Psychopathology is no longer listed in DSM or ICD. therefore is no longer a valid diagnostic. It has nothing to do with the reality of domestic animals being used for human consumption. You are either en imbecile or as I said, some leftist vegan fag.

Mental illness is decided according to the "holy bibles" of mental health diagnostic, which are also decided politically by different professional bodies (based on evidence, ofc, but the evidence is self-serving ultimately, since they're also conducting the studies which provide "the evidence").

Morality is relative as a matter of fact! Not your morality from your fucking culture, weak mind, but morality in general, in the sense that it's culture-dependent. So you have particular types of moral codes in Asia, in the Middle East, in Europe, etc. None of them have something universal. For instance, in some cultures, human life is not a value, but honor can be more important than one's life. This is a concept which tends to offend the gentle ears from the West... that there still are some "extremists" who belive that dying for Allah is more important than living like a "respectable" faggot in a materialistic society. So , there you go, a simple moral concept which is de facto relative on a global level.

Etc.

>>2889658
TL;DR

>>2889674
hahahaha, I knew it, you're a 12 yr old or at most a 16

>>2889658
>So , there you go, a simple moral concept which is de facto relative on a global level.

Quite the double standard there, don't you think? In science there is almost never an agreement when it comes to the details. Does this evidence support this particular theory, or the other? And people will debate this sometimes for years. How long was Relativity debated for? Or quantum mechanics? Or any theory in biology?

Yet you don't see this disagreement as a sign that there isn't a correct answer to these questions. In fact we see this disagreement as a sign that we are moving closer to the correct answers.

But when you see disagreement on issues of what benefits people, you take that to mean that there is no correct answer, and that every culture is free to come up with whatever values they want.

>>2889656

Morality is exclusionary. You could say a moral person is bigoted against whatever he calls evil. The bigot wasn't considered immoral until liberalism became more popular.

>>2889655

What are you even trying to say? You value logic therefore morality must have a logical foundation?

>>2889658
>lol vegan leftie fag detected.

Please, enough with the name calling.

>>2889674
some people value human life (christfags)
some people don't (extremist muslims)
morals are relative

although I personally question calling religious folk humans. good grief, how can one expect reasoning from people who believe in sky faeries

>>2889697
>says the guy who continues to babble off-topic ideas but thinks he's making a coherent case that morality is only determined subjectively
<span class="math">\mathBB{GAME~OVER, YOU LOSE}[/spoiler]

>>2889697
<span class="math">[/spoiler]
>says the guy who continues to babble off-topic ideas but thinks he's making a coherent case that morality is only determined subjectively
<span class="math">\mathbb{GAME~OVER, YOU LOSE}[/spoiler]

>>2889700
Moral relativity (at a global level, not within a particular culture) doesn't have anything to do with disagreement over competing theories. Moral codes are not hypotheses and they are not tested to see which one is better. C'mon...

Science is how people apply morals

>>2889702

Allow me to clarify. You claim that morality is based on preference. I take it to mean that you think because we all have different preferences, all our moralities will be different and thus it is not objective.

To this I claim that valuing logic is also a preference and according to your reasoning, this value must also be not objective.

I am saying that just because our reasons for valuing something is based on our preference for that value does not mean that we are wrong to value these things. If I value truth, am I wrong in doing so? What if I value falsehoods? If I value logic, am I wrong in doing so? What if I value nonsense? If I value human well being, am I wrong in doing so? What if I value human suffering?

>>2889716
>some people value human life (christfags)
>some people don't (extremist muslims)
>morals are relative
morals are relative b/c most morals are poorly informed. non-sequitur argument needs more sequitur

>>2889741
>morals are relative b/c most morals are poorly informed. non-sequitur argument needs more sequitur

WHAT? If a statement is uninformed, it doesn't mean that the subject is relative. It means that the person is uninformed about the topic. If I make an uninformed statement about quantum mechanics, it doesn't mean that QM is all relative and subjective. It just means that I need to study up.

scientifically verifiable logic:
·black people are homosapiens.
·their increased melonin production levels do not affect their ability to think and do work like another homosapien who has less melonin production
·these values of black people is approximately equal to white people
therefor:
·slavery based on the notion of ethnic superiority is incorrect.
lesson learned:
·scientific inquiry establishes precedents for morality
<span class="math">\mathbb{/THREAD}[/spoiler]

>>2889751
if you're
>>2889716
you're trolling. otherwise, please read more carefully.

>>2889768

I'm not him. I use a trip. Yea, he's trolling.

>>2889697
>>2889702
>>2889716

<span class="math">Well,~looks~like~I've~won~this~thread.~Goodnight~then,~faggots.[/spoiler]

>>2889737

The subject-object distinction imposes unnecessary distinctions in this discourse. Stop using the term subjective.

Morality is a cultural construction. Those in power collectively decide what is and what is not moral. Their decision is based on their collective preferences. If they value God, the moral law is God's. If they value logic, the moral law is rational. And so on.

A moral system can be compared to a mathematical system: both are formalizations of conventions and definitions (though mathematics does it with more rigor). It makes no sense to evaluate a mathematical proposition from without the system. The same applies to moral evaluations. Moral propositions are only right or wrong from within a specific moral system.

>>2889850
>Morality is a cultural construction.

How you know this? What else is culturally constructed? Is mathematics such? How about logic?

>>2889868

History. Everything. Yes. Yes.

>>2889871

Are these subjects less correct because of their cultural origin?

>>2889876

What do you mean by correct?

>>2889880

Are logic and mathematics improper ways of understanding the universe because of their cultural origin?

>>2889871
>>2889868

Okey, NO, just stop this shit. So I was browsing /sci/, and I don't care about what the original post was about, you don't go around saying shit like that.

Moral being culturally constructed? Have you EVER taken a course on, I don't know, ontology? Or fucking ethics?

>>2889888

That's kinda what I'm arguing. I'm just trying to being more Socratic about it.

>>2889888
Morality is nothing more than personal preference. LOL @ taking a course on fucking ethics
hurr durr these greeks wanted people to do this 3000 years ago

Science is very good at telling you facts about the world. What is, what will happen if you do something, how to get from point A to point B, etc...

There are no real objective moral truths - however, most people (thanks to human nature) can agree that staying alive and avoiding pain are good things. From there, we can build up a moral framework that virtually all of us can agree on, and science can tell us how to best achieve our goals.

...but this is all irrelevant and you're talking about the "truth" of Abrahamic religion. Oh well. Go troll elsewhere.

>>2889887
>>2889898

Answer my question. You don't get to be Socratic until you know that you know nothing.

>>2889888

My ontology is the best ontology. Fuck the rest.

>>2889915
>...but this is all irrelevant and you're talking about the "truth" of Abrahamic religion. Oh well. Go troll elsewhere.

This thread left religion a while ago.

>There are no real objective moral truths

But there are real objective truths about human well being. And that is what I am saying we should promote.

>>2889918

Which question was that?

>>2889940

What do you mean by correct?

>>2889943

Are logic and mathematics improper ways of understanding the universe because of their cultural origin?

>>2889946

Simply, no. What do you mean by correct?

>>2889958

Correct, the truth, the way that things are. Corresponding to reality.

>>2889958
>>2889961

Or in the context of these fields, providing information that is true, information that corresponds to the way things are.

>>2889961
>reality

What the hell do you mean by that?

herpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherp
derpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderp
derpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderp
herpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherpderpherp

>>2889967
>>2889967

Truth
http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

Why are we talking about ontology?

>>2889908

If ethics is just preferences, fulfilling those preferences must be what's morally right.

You pretty much described preference utilitarianism. And it's a shitty position.

Yea, making shit up will really work out when you're trying to convince someone who knows stuff about the subject.

>>2890009
I described every moral position, because that's what morality is, preference. I honestly can't believe that people are still debating this.

>>2890016

You are making a generalization that is either untrue, or is applicable to every position ever. EVER. Including logical frameworks and mathematical structures.

>>2890016

No shit when you can't figure out why people are debating it if you're having the intellectual honesty of a Tea party member.

> This seems like shit
> I like thinking this is shit, so I'll just keep it like this

And saying "ethics is preferences" is just stupid to begin with (I used the principle of goodwill before), since ethics in itself is the study of what's ought to what's morally right and wrong. Doesn't make any more sense but to say that "biology is just preferences".

And even if I try to make sense of what you're saying, it's incorrect, since there's ethical positions that couldn't care less about what you as a person have for preferences. Not to mention that it raises the question; if it's preferences, what are they preferences of?

>>2889981

Reality isn't necessary for truth. You only need language(s).

On a semi-unrelated note: I usually prefer wiki and SEP over IEP, but the section on Tarski's Theory of truth was pretty good.

>>2890036

If there is no reality then any statement made using language won't apply to reality. How can anything be so, if there is no reality.

Oh fuck we are talking about ontology again. It's late, I'm out of here. Enjoy this picture of a pony.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>2890036


> Reality isn't necessary for truth. You only need language(s).

Language is part of reality

>>2890051

Reality is part of language.

>>2890055

And what on EARTH would make anyone think something like that? If you quote Derrida, I'll kill a kitten.

>>2890048

>>2890048

Oh lawd

>>2890048

Mods? On /sci/?

Check mate Atheists.

>>2890048
>>2890048

HOLY SHIT FUCK I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS

SOMEONE GOT BANNED ON /SCI???

>>2888916

>my face when it took two, not one, atomic bombs for them to surrender
>my face when I have no face

>>2888916
>implying its not true

really? this troll thread has 190 replies when this
>>2890079
has 2?

>>2890048

A glorious new dawn

>>2890072

In logical analysis its object is its definition, not what it means to represent in the world. That's how I'm viewing this.

It's like I'm really on new.!

>>2890167
>>2890167
>implying people got banned on /new