/sci/ - Science & Math

Slavish adherence to an ideal is religious, sure. Arbitrariness doesn't matter since there is always a viewpoint one may adopt which indicates everything is arbitrary or a social construct (it's called relativism). The hallmark of a non-religious position is one which could be temporarily left to adopt the relativistic position; if your worldview forbids such a maneuver, then it is a good sign that you have a religious mindset.

>>3665331

I absolutely agree, excellent point.

Sure is nihilist in here

>>3665331

Would you not consider a moral/ethical code based on the innate tendencies of the human brain to be the most efficient and meaningful we can adopt?

Most belief systems are based on non-real axioms (ex, God, property, "the good in humanity"), but I feel as if one constructed to address the specific habits of the mind as they are discovered provides a very real grounding for morality (ex, because the human brain experiences pain negatively, it should not be endured).

>>3665334

I do not think a human can function without a belief system. He may behave very strangely when there are obvious and strong contradictions in his belief system, but one cannot simply resign from any and all ethical codes and allow their behavior to be entirely dictated by randomness or nothingness.

A true nihilist simply lies down in exactly the position he was in when he discovered his nihilism, ceases to talk, think or gesture in any way and allows himself to die slowly without so much as a whimper or a shout. A vegetable, if you will.

You can't go from X is like Y
>A society based upon a concept of possession as axiomatic necessity is therefore on the same level as theocracies which introduce similar man made axiomatic norms for the purpose of governance, morality and human interaction.
to X = Y
>That is to say that objectivism is, at its core, a religion.

>possession lacks any concrete grounding in the laws of the physical universe.

implying this watch being attached to MY wrist isn't due to gravity and friction.
Implying the bullet that would into the head of an intruder trying to steal MY house wouldn't prevent him.

>>3665320

> possession lacks

Yes, but not ownership.

>>3665320
>Possession is a human concept determined by socially agreed upon

I always find it funny that the people who defend possession as a right the fiercest have no problems with stealing from others.

Axioms are based on intuition. We determine whether an axiom is relevant or not based on the situation at hand; axioms come from empiricism, and repeated exposure to an instance. For instance, the axiom that addition is commutative comes from repeated exposure to the correct elements to which the fact applies; seeing that 4 rocks and 3 rocks makes 3 rocks and 4; seeing that 5 trees and 2 makes 2 and 5, etcetera.

Through this we can obtain moral axioms. For instance, we have an intuitive understanding that humans can feel pain, and that it is to be avoided. This can be part of a moral basis.

We can also use logic, also gleaned from axioms which are themselves from empiricism. For instance, when we use stringent definitions for what exactly 'human rights' are, it becomes clear that whatever rights we decide on, they should be a universal standard applied to all humans. We can use this 'axiom of symmetry' to come to more conclusions (for instance, the non-aggression principle).

>>3665374

well obviously but there is no measurable or observable physical property of any object that will indicate to whom it belongs.

>>3665350
> Would you not consider a moral/ethical code based on the innate tendencies of the human brain to be the most efficient and meaningful we can adopt?
Any moral code can be the most efficient and meaningful, given criteria for judging moral codes as "efficient and meaningful." So how do you decide the "right" criteria? (Especially without begging the question.)

But anyway, to apply such criteria, one must still adopt the relativistic stance in order to appraise the efficiency and meaningfulness of moral codes, in order to order them and determine that, yes, this is the most efficient and meaningful of the bunch, and then adopt it. (And once you've adopted it, how will you recognize a better one?)

> but I feel as if one constructed to address the specific habits of the mind as they are discovered provides a very real grounding for morality
The is-ought gap is still there. Additionally, there is some problem of circularity in this grounding. Finally, why should the peculiarities of the human brain have anything to do with morality in the first place? Why not a dolphin brain, or an abstract "mammalian" brain, or some other brain-like structure?

These are all meant to be rhetorical, by the way. I am only trying to support the notion that if your worldview renders you incapable of leaving it to appraise another, it has a religiosity to it. But merely being able to set it aside to judge is necessary but not sufficient, as any criteria you use for judgment could also be crafted, intentionally or otherwise, just for selecting your particular moral code, leading to some circularity.

EVERY moral code is based on man-made ideas. So if we take as a first principle that the fact that every man-made idea is arbitrary and subjective, and that these are bad things, well, then obviously all of them are equally baseless.

But they aren't all equal in practice. Some encourage healthy people in healthy societies, and some do not. The best we've come up with yet is the modern, western, humanist, secular moral code of the enlightenment. Though obviously it is not codified, it is nevertheless shared to a great degree throughout the most peaceful and prosperous parts of this world. Some may disagree, and that is their prerogative. It is just my subjective stance that I want to live in a healthy society to begin with, after all.


Objectivism is asinine because it encourages selfishness, and that urge needs no encouragement.

Christianity, and indeed all religions, are bad for societies because they move part of the moral equation to a point after death. If one can expect compensation or punishment after death, according to a set of rules that none of us can reasonably verify for ourselves, well, any kind of command is possible and would still seem reasonable to the believer. So while we can all pretty much agree on what is good for the life, there is nothing but disagreement on what is good for the soul.

>>3665382
proximity
interactivity

>>3665374
>I throw a machete at your wrist
>Your hand and your watch come off and find their way to me

Perfectly alright according to physics but you might object.

>>3665371

I agree that one cannot go from "x is like y" to x is y.
But I think my post suggested that "x is based on human axioms, y is based on human axioms. x and y are both based on human axioms, so why are they fundamentally (not characteristically) different?"

>>3665320
Accordingly, every human concept is baseless. This is in no way a new idea.
>>3665350
You have already contradicted yourself.

It's incredibly simplistic to associate pain or any other form of 'suffering' as a negative.

I would recommend reading more philosophy.

>>3665387

I live in the home of my parents, and yet it is not my home. How bout that.

>>3665399
Typical pseudointellectual. Loosely uses the term 'contradiction' when it has zero bearing on what he's talking about. How about you read some logic, bro.

>>3665387

Use never equals ownership.

>>3665350

The way I see it;

We want to continue existing, so we abhor murder. We want to maintain bodily integrity, so we abhor assault. We want to keep our stuff, so we abhor theft. And we want to trust and be trusted, so we abhor betrayal and perjury. And then we have rules that clarify or modify these, and about who deserves this kind of treatment but you'd be hard pressed to find a society that doesn't have these four in their moral code for dealing with in-group, for whatever justification they may give.

But the human mind is plastic. And we can learn to apply these instincts about morality to a very narrow or a very wide group; and we can reason about the best way to ensure we get this kind of treatment for ourselves and our kin.

>>3665394
Because you haven't shown that "being based on human axioms" is what makes a system fundementally the same.

>>3665399
That's a near looking mask thing on the top left of art now.

>>3665399

I see the contradiction, and I understand the simplicity of the assertion.

I do not think it is possible for a human to have no belief system, so I'm simply suggesting what might be a better belief system based on the axiom that pain (psychological or physical) is bad and to be avoided. This axiom makes a great deal more sense to me than possession or God or altruism, as I experience it directly.

So yes-- everything is baseless at its core (the universe was not constructed to facilitate us and our psychological need for belief), but I do not think the axioms we introduce to fill that void are all the same.

And in concluding so, I realize that ...>brain-based-ethics>objectivism>Christianity>national socialism>... (answering the primary question of the first post) based on my own axiomatic criteria, thereby completing the massive circular logic that is my life and this thread.

So, the thread started with the question, "why is one belief system better than any other when they are all based on axioms." The answer is "the axiomatic criteria of the person asking the question will determine which is "better" and why."

Thanks for the help.

TL;DR

Legalize theft because I don't want to get a job

>>3665402
The OP asserted that every moral code of human creation is baseless, and in his next post he proposed the construction of a 'new' moral code of human creation. This is a contradition. Words can have more than one meaning, and I am using the word appropriately.

Morality is just about agreement and consensus. Most people have agreed that in order to function as a society, acts which are detrimental to society should be punished. There's nothing more to it.

>>3665430
how do you know it was the OP?

We should all have3 faith in the state fuck possesions the state will save me.

>>3665430

It was me who posted that. Please read >>3665423. I'm curious what you think.

any moral code someone can dream up is going to be a result of our biology and environment.
any "should" statement is as baseless as the next.

>>3665331
>>if it isn't relativist its religious
Ummm, no. You either misunderstand relativism or, my guess, religion.

>>3665381
My ayndroid sensors are pinging.
Axioms are logical or mathematical conceptualizations that are starting points that are assumed true or false or elements that cannot be confirmed via formal proofs (this is a very short summary).

>>3665386
>>EVERY moral code is based on man-made ideas
A few billion people disagree with you
>>The best we've come up with yet is the modern, western, humanist, secular moral code of the enlightenment.
Ditto
>>Christianity, and indeed all religions, are bad for societies
Puh-leeeze - how are you going to back this up, deny Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc. culture and claim the 'modern, humanist, secular West' sprang forth from Zeus' forehead fully formed?
This is childish anti-religious twaddle at its most embarrassing.

>>3665423
>I'm simply suggesting what might be a better belief system based on the axiom that pain (psychological or physical) is bad and to be avoided.
Well done, you've described negative utilitarianism. Pain is not always bad. Masochists enjoy certain types of pain. Furthermore, there are examples in which inflicting pain on someone is good e.g. one guy is going to blow up the planet unless he tells you a code to defuse the bomb. It would be morally justified to torture that individual in order to save humanity.

>>3665423
>>3665440
I think you understand what is going on. You might reach the conclusion that a rationalist approach to morality is doomed to fail, hence morality must be dictated by something external, even if that something does not truly exist.

>>3665450

I said pain is bad in either a psychological or a physical sense. Let us consider masochism as a physical pain endured for a greater psychological pleasure, thus making the activity (by superposition) not painful.

>>3665445
> if it isn't relativist its religious
> Ummm, no.
Correct: no. Thankfully, that's not what I said.

>>3665423
>>pain (psychological or physical) is bad and to be avoided
So, childbirth is to be avoided
Cancer surgery is to be avoided
Weightlifting to competition level is to be avoided
Emotional attachment to any person who could predecease you and cause you grief is to be avoided
Hard physical labor to create and maintain farms, roads, buildings, etc. is to be avoided

Sounds like a pretty lame way to live to me.

>>3665454

You suggested I read some philosophy. I love to toy with ideas dealing with this subject, but I hate reading hyper-dense metaphysical literature that goes into rigorous depth defining its points and introducing phrases like "the beingness of the being."

Any recommendations for a more casual reader?

>>3665445
>>EVERY moral code is based on man-made ideas
>A few billion people disagree with you
I don't doubt it. But the moral codes they follow, regardless of who they think invented them, were in fact invented by humans. Not by people sitting down in committee, not by one genius, but by the gradual cultural evolution of societies.
>>The best we've come up with yet is the modern, western, humanist, secular moral code of the enlightenment.
>Ditto
>>Christianity, and indeed all religions, are bad for societies
>Puh-leeeze - how are you going to back this up, deny Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc. culture and claim the 'modern, humanist, secular West' sprang forth from Zeus' forehead fully formed?
No sir. The values of the enlightenment are based on a foundation of Christian thought, which is itself based on earlier Hellenic and Hebraic roots, and later combined directly with Classical and Eastern thoughts on the matter. One cannot deny the evolutionary history of our current value system. But when I say 'bad', perhaps I should say, 'worse', at least, worse than systems which do not move the moral equation past death. Which is the main reason I gave for them being 'bad'. So only 'bad' in the way that being out of shape is 'bad' compared to being hale and healthy; both are still better than being sick.
>This is childish anti-religious twaddle at its most embarrassing.
Come on now, I can't write a whole manifesto in every post. Though I hope I have clarified my position here.

>>3665459
So what *did* you say?
>>Slavish adherence to an ideal is religious, sure
Really? I think you need to either redefine 'religious' or argue with a shitton of utilitarians, libertarians, Objectivists, and atheists who are not changing their minds but are certainly not religious - oh, and the people who disagree with them and see them as 'slavishly devoted' but agree they aren't religious.

You also said
>>The hallmark of a non-religious position is one which could be temporarily left to adopt the relativistic position; if your worldview forbids such a maneuver, then it is a good sign that you have a religious mindset.

After reading this AGAIN and re-reading
>>3665459
You need to rephrase what you wrote and/or explain how this DOESN'T mean 'if you aren't relativist you are religious'

>>3665464

Physical or psychological. Again, by superposition all of the things you have listed are not painful because they create a greater amount of psychological pleasure than physical pain (otherwise why the fuck would you do it?).

Even something like religiously motivated self-mutilation or sacrifice for a loved one adheres to this idea.

Please, find an exception where a human being does something that causes both psychological pain and physical pain and no pleasure at all.

>>3665471
An opposing view might be nice. Julius Evola, specifically Ride the Tiger and Revolt Against the Modern World, wherein he discusses Nietzsche, existentialism etc and juxtaposes it with tradition.

Is this >>3665477
posted by >>3665331 ?

>>3665491

Fantastic, thanks man! I'm glad you suggested an opposing view.

>>3665477 here
>>3665494

nope, I'm;

>>3665386
>>3665405
>>3665477

>>3665471
(Not that poster but...)
"Philosophical Investigations" by Wittgenstein is very readable. There's some decent sites on the web about it, and I've found a full PDF before, too.

Husserl's "The Crisis of the European Sciences" is tough, but readable if you're willing to do some side reading on the web.

plato.stanford.edu is a cool resource.

Hume is also fairly readable, but I haven't tried to find anything on the web.

>>3665477
Your repeated assertions != fact. Please post your refutation of natural law, inherent value theory, moral realism, moral universalism, etc.
You *are* aware of these topics, right?

As for religion, you A) seem to mistake generic Western Protestant concepts for 'religion' (there are a fair number of world religions that have nothing to do with post-death reward and punishment, for example) and simply expect me to take your assertions as facts, which I decline to do. The amount of ink spilled by *secular humanists* decrying how worse off the average Man is in the post-Enlightenment world is prodigious! I am afraid you need to quantify your claims, because I reject them based upon my own reading, education, and personal experiences.

>>3665490
Ah! So your axioms boils down to 'avoid things you don't like'?
Does that need formalization?

>>3665484
> So what *did* you say?
I said if your worldview rendered you incapable of setting it aside, it was religious. Relativism is not really a moral code. It's not a positive position. It is a framework for discussing positions.

If you can manage to make it through, a short paper called "Death and Furniture" has, towards the end, an excellent summary of what relativism is about, and for. The main thrust of the paper is a defense of relativism against common realist arguments; much of that can be skimmed as not relevant to this conversation.

>>3665516

I'm not sure what you're asking. Please restate which assertion of mine you are questioning by quoting it.

>>3665509
Nice list!
Also, the sticky at
>>>/lit/
has a TON or recommendations

>>3665521
>>the axiom that pain (psychological or physical) is bad and to be avoided

but this is so attenuated by later statements that I rephrased it

>>3665511

Well, I'm no expert. (obviously, this is /sci/)

But I can't think of an example of one moral code that was invented by something other than a person. So if this is a baseless assertion, even one counter-example would shut me up.

And saying that all religions are solely concerned with life after death is not what I meant. Obviously they have temporal components as well, and it is here that most of the useful moral work is done. I'm just saying that settling the moral equation at the other side of death is not a good thing.

>>3665490
>by superposition all of the things you have listed are not painful because they create a greater amount of psychological pleasure than physical pain
Just not true. I highly doubt a cancer survivor feels more pleasure than the pain of chemotherapy.

>Please, find an exception where a human being does something that causes both psychological pain and physical pain and no pleasure at all.
Cutters. People who kill themselves.

>>3665517
>>Yes, I did say if it isn't relativist it is religion
FTFY

and yes I have read "Death and Furniture" and find it rather weak, especially since Thaetetus and the Nicomachean Ethics addressed these issues millenia ago

>>3665529

Yes I did not define the axiom very well. The point of that post was not to say "this axiom is the best" it was meant to say that all axioms are assessed based on whatever axioms we have already accepted. The addendum were added to address your examples of why you consider the axiom incongruous with reality.

You can discuss the broader point of that post you quoted if you like.

>>3665533

Well done, you have given two good examples of actions that cause no pleasure and only pain. I was actually considering suicide when I wrote that.

Nonetheless, I stand by it. The whole reason anybody does anything is to address some kind of psychological or physical discomfort (there really is no distinction between these types if you have solipsistic notions about the mind). Suicide or self-harm is an attempt to relieve oneself of tremendous suffering. Whether or not these attempts are successful is not important.

So if I may, I'd like to pose you an even tougher question.

Find an example of a human action that is not aimed at either addressing discomfort/pain (psychological or physical) or sustaining pleasure.

>>3665530
I did list these topics
>>natural law, inherent value theory, moral realism, moral universalism
please review them to see the broad range of people that argue that morals are objective and moral codes are simply an acknowledgement of reality, not man-made constructs; that moral codes are no more 'man made' than gravity. There is a rather broad range of concepts and people within these fields.

>>And saying that all religions are solely concerned with life after death is not what I meant. Obviously they have temporal components as well, and it is here that most of the useful moral work is done. I'm just saying that settling the moral equation at the other side of death is not a good thing.

First, you haven't demonstrated that major religions place 'the settling of the moral code on the other side' NOR that this is the negative that you claim it is. Couldn't it be argued that a person who believes they face judgement after death will strive *harder* to be just, moral and upright in this world than someone who doesn't believe in any moral judgement?

>>3665542
> I find death and furniture weak
It doesn't really matter. The point worth noting is the exposition on what relativism is.

In any case I have not advocated relativism as a moral position. Your continued insistence that I have is disappointing.

What the hell is everyone in this thread talking about. I opened this thread thinking it would be about how Ayn Rand's theories about objectism were more a kin to religious belief than logical reasoning and instead I find you talking about axioms relating to the human condition in general.

What the hell is this thread about?

>>3665561
Yes, I know what relativism is.
I never stated that you asserted relativism as a moral code, I simply pointed out that you claim that any moral or ethical stance which isn't relativistic is religious, which is simply false.
That's all

>>3665563
its about how 4chan needs a /phi/ board

>>3665563
>>3665563

Oh don't mind us. We're just human beings fully aware of the fragility of any knowledge and the axiomatic nature underlying any and all belief systems, yet also with the innate need for one in order to function.

Furthermore, we all have outrageous self bias (again, probably innate) and are therefore upset by the cognitive dissonance created by someone asserting we are wrong, consequently prompting us to argue with them in an attempt to refute the contradictions they have illustrated.

>>3665595
So this thread is about trying to make yourself sound like a pretentious prick? Got it.

>>3665559

I get the arguments for objective moral truths. But I don't understand how anybody can think they can identify them. So we are left with a practical subjective morality regardless, where we identify the best action through argument and reason, and it is subject to review.

We may find morals that are nearly universal in humans, but this is likely a product of our biological nature, not some kind of absolute, objective truth of the universe.

The reason that moving the settling of moral equations to the other side of death is not great, is because nobody actually knows what is going on after death. So while we can all discuss the protection of life on a level playing field, we cannot discuss the protection of the soul in the same way. At least, not until we can figure out what the soul is and how to investigate what is good for it. So if you have convinced people that they must be more interested in protecting their souls than their lives, and you are the one who know what is good for the soul, then there is no limit to what you can do with that power.

I would consider the cycle of reincarnation to be settling matters on the other side of death. And placement in heaven or hell based on your actions in life is also settling matters on the other side of death. That's the major religions.

>>3665590
But I never said that, so I don't know why you insist on repeating it.

Here's what I'm saying, relative to science. "Any theory held by scientists which is not open to criticism is a religion, not a science." If you cannot set aside newtonian gravity, you cannot formulate general relativity. If you cannot set aside the bohr model of the atom, you cannot develop an alternative model. Note none of these theories require demand relativism in the sense you seem to understand. (As such, I actually doubt your claim that you understand relativism, but whatever.)

>>3665612
you're awesome

>>3665612

gosh why does everyone always call me pretentious? I was just trying to be funny and self deprecating...

>>3665623
>gosh

>>3665320
animals get defensive over their food

>>3665636

I'm seriously losing my ability to get along with people. When I talk to people they get annoyed by me a lot-- a common critique being that I'm pretentious or condescending. Keep my thoughts to myself maybe?

>>3665640
match the tone of others in conversation
when you hear something consider their tone
where they angry, sad, jolly?

also how would you describe what they said to some third party?
she is mad at her friend, he strongly disagrees with me, he is happy

lastly, communicate your emotions in your tone. don't tell me how you feel.
say something else, and indirectly communicate how you feel.
this will become easier once you turn 16

>>3665617
you don't understand it != it isn't possible!

While I understand that you are making an argument that religious leaders may have great power, I don't think you have explained how the deferment of moral judgement until after death by some religions is 'bad'. I could counter that within a population that has NO belief in an aafterlife a tyrant would have more absolute control over their lives because they have no hope for supernatural rewards to counter temporal suffering, so the *failure* to believe in moral judgement after death gives these secular rulers MORE power - does that make a secular worldview 'bad'?

>>3665667

How can I turn 16 when I'm 20???!

>>3665618
A-HA! got it; now i see where the miscommunication lies
Direct quotes:
>>if your worldview rendered you incapable of setting it aside, it was religious
>>Slavish adherence to an ideal is religious
>>The hallmark of a non-religious position is one which could be temporarily left to adopt the relativistic position; if your worldview forbids such a maneuver, then it is a good sign that you have a religious mindset.
I apologize if you are offended if I take you at your word, but what you write does, yes, mean what it says.
And there is a world of difference between 'as a scientist I am open to the falsification of theories that I hold' and 'relativism' - a large enough gulf that I am now certain that you do not actually understand what relativism means, yourself.

Being able to accept the potential of the falsification of a scientific hypothesis = 'the scientific method'
relativism = the philosophical belief that there is no absolute truth

What you are really saying, without seeming to understand what you are saying, is that unless a scientist is willing to reject *the scientific method* then the scientific method is *itself* a religion.

this is simply not true.

I understand now that this is not what you were *trying* to say, but it is what you were actually *saying* because you don't understand what relativism means and implies.

/r/ing rule 34 on Ayn Rand

>>3665623
>>3665640
I tend to slip into jargon/sesquipedalianism and it annoys the Hell out of people. I actually speak this way in person, too, so you have to learn how to turn it off/laugh at yourself

>>3665690

>>3665640
Forget what >>3665667 said. People dislike you because of how you use your vocabulary. You use "big" words that almost fit the sentence but a simpler choice of words would have conveyed what you wanted to say better. Take how you used the term cognitive dissonance in >>3665595. When you use the word in that context it becomes confusing as to what you mean because, what you are trying to convey doesn't fit the normal definition of cognitive dissonance. In written argument eloquence is power. Word choice must be dealt with like a surgeon handling a scalpel. You must make sure each is appropriate, correct and accurate. You wield your world choice like cave man wields a club just throwing in four syllable words for effect.
.

>>3665320
tl, dr: Isn't one shit-post by a 4chan faggot as equally pointless as any other?

>>3665681

Religious leaders having too much power is exactly the problem. It's a system that installs a huge and, what should be, obvious backdoor into the moral firewall of every person that follows it.

If we actually had something to go on, we had some way to discuss the events that may or may not occur after death, then it would be fine to base a moral system that takes this part of your existence into account. But we don't. We may as well base a moral system on the idea that if you misbehave during the day, demons will torture you at night and then wipe your memory. This may motivate people, but it would still be silly.


And yes, my inability to understand something does not equal it being impossible to understand. But every argument I've heard for any objective moral truths boils down to; 'since we all agree this is a correct moral statement, we can know it is objectively morally true'. There is a very obvious problem with that statement.

>>3665687
> relativism = the philosophical belief that there is no absolute truth
No, no, no, no. Relativism does not make that claim. It is as silly as suggesting that "First order predicate logic says that there is no such thing as a number." Who would make such a claim? No one. It's ridiculous.

What relativism suggests is that the act of determining truth must take place within a framework which, implicitly or explicitly, defines the syntax and semantics of "truth." As such, there's no way to "get out" of a worldview to command an absolute view of truth. The moment you've defined truth, you're already in a system of thought. Of course, a system of thought could assert its own truth, but in philosophical circles such circular demonstrations do not carry much weight. Because of this, relativism does make the claim that no worldview holds a privileged position, because anything which does claim a privileged position must beg the question. Some relativists then suggest that there does not exist a privileged position, but that is not required (I don't believe it is true, in fact).

> What you are really saying, without seeming to understand what you are saying, is that unless a scientist is willing to reject *the scientific method* then the scientific method is *itself* a religion.
If a scientist is incapable of adopting a position which could be critical of the scientific method, then yes, it ceases to be a method and instead has become a ritual. I am perfectly content with suggesting the scientific method is the best method, but I did not say so by using the scientific method. I had to set it aside.
(continued next post)

>>3665687
> And there is a world of difference between 'as a scientist I am open to the falsification of theories that I hold' and 'relativism'
There is no gap at all. Science and math are quintessentially relativist, without ever putting forth a positive theory of relativism (of which there are some, and which you seem to be familiar with to the exclusion of other forms).

>>3665759
> no such thing as a number
should really be
> no such thing as the natural numbers
but the point is the same. Sorry about that.

These values cannot be self-justified, meaning they cannot support themselves. For instance, “If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” These values must be accepted axiomatically if they are to be accepted at all.

“You can play that same game with everything that we think is objective. So, why does two plus two make four? It seems to make four to us but how do we know that’s not just a human intuition? What is wrong with a logical argument that contradicts itself? Why is self-contradiction not a good way to argue? Well, it just doesn’t seem to fly. And you can always try to get behind that as an epistemological skeptic or a logical skeptic and say ‘well, this is just how you monkeys are wired to think.’… You have to pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It’s better than pulling yourself down by them. Every objective paradigm has to make a first move; it has to step into the light based on some axiomatic judgment that is not self-justifying. Gödel proved this in logic and if this is true for arithmetic, it’s true for things far more complicated.”

“Thinking about moral truth in the context of science should only pose a problem for you if you imagine that a science of morality has to be absolutely self-justifying in a way that no science ever could be. Every branch of science must rely on certain axiomatic assumptions, certain core values. And a science of morality would be on the same footing as a science of medicine or physics or chemistry… If science is unscientific, if having a value assumption at the core renders science unscientific, then what is scientific?”

>>3665759
What non-retards say relativism means and what people in general think it means are quite different.

People generally just take it as justification for "Well that's just your opinion, man, I can think whatever I want. Don't be so close-minded."

>>3665795
Yes, of course you start somewhere. These are positive theories. What's wrong with positive theories? Nothing at all.

It's a curious argument he makes. I've seen some rebuttals of skepticism and they actually have some decent force behind them. ("On Certainty" by Wittgenstein is a particularly well-motivated attack on radical skepticism.)

But the mere fact that "we have to start somewhere" doesn't imply---in the slightest---that where we start is suddenly absolutely true. So what's the point of his argument? I don't understand.

>>3665803
Unfortunately that is a common position among young people. The traditional introduction to philosophy encourages this by offering up strong opinions which disagree with each other, only strengthening the idea that "everything is opinion." Oh well, one can hope that people like Rorty---trading "pragmatism" for "relativism" because of the dirty word it has become---will raise the bar again.

>>3665818
I'm pretty sure he's debunking an argument against the scientific study of morality by showing that "But that has axiomatic value judgments in it" applies to all sciences.

Basically, that we can form a scientific study of human morality, and the axioms are what we mean by human "flourishing".

>>3665830
Ah, yes, I can see that.

Really the way out is simpler than asserting foundationalism. Just don't assert truth. Mathematics figured that out long ago. (Someone even proved a theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem ) Relativists also figured it out. Unfortunately there's still a lot of people that need convincing, including (apparently) Sam Harris.

>>3665759
>>relativism does not make that claim
It does and it doesn't - while the framework schema of relativism is the norm for realist interpretation of relativism, non-realist relativism denies the existence of objective facts. Indeed, the reliance upon a subjective framework for the determination of relative truth is why the concept is called 'relativism' in the first place rather than simply anti-realism.
So, yeah, I get it. Always did. The soft-shoe doesn't change what you said. Indeed, your insistence upon relativism as the only method of determining truth is kinda'... religious, isn't it?

>>3665890
> Indeed, your insistence upon relativism as the only method of determining truth
I never said that.

I believe I have been extremely concise, clear, and polite, and have said everything I needed to say on the topic. You continue to misconstrue what I say by suggesting I hold positions I don't, say things I explicitly denied, and then argue against that strawman.

So, I decline to participate further with you.

>>3665880
> Just don't assert truth
so torturing a baby for fun isnt truly morally wrong?

>>3665762
>>science is quintessentially relativist
Again, you don't seem to understand what 'relativist' actually means in this context. 'Relativism' is a huge fucking net that can refer to all sorts of sometimes-exclusive ideas. To simply use 'relativism' again and again implies a basic anti-realist stance which is totally incompatible with scientific research!

>>3665914
>>if it isn't relativistic its a religion
>>science is relativistic
Wow, I *am* slow - nice relativistic trolling!

>>3665937
> To simply use 'relativism' again and again implies a basic anti-realist stance which is totally incompatible with scientific research!
Science does NOT suppose realism. It is not a precondition, it is not an assertion, it literally has nothing to do with realism. Off the top of my head there are at least two positions within the philosophy of science which illustrate this: scientific idealism and instrumentalism. I guess phenomenalism, too, a sort of elevated empiricism.

>>3665921
Not that guy, and I generally agree with you that there is a broad and basically uncontroversial human "morality", but this short story might get you thinking.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

The Baby Eaters don't feel the same way you do about the suffering of their children.

>>3665921
If you're asking me whether I think it is wrong, the answer is yes, I think it is wrong.

>>3665921

Torture, like murder, is a loaded term. Just as murder, by definition, is the unjustified killing of another human being, so too is torture the excessive inflicting of anguish on a person, not for their own benefit.

It is easy to find situations that we cannot imagine being justified in any way. But the fact that everyone agrees on it does not make it a universal, objective, absolute moral fact. The very fact that we take a poll on it, and assume that we will go with the poll, invalidates the whole thing. We don't take a poll on gravity, or string theory, or evolution. So at the least, moral truths cannot be the same sort of truth as these are, it is conceptual, not material.

If we took a poll on certain forms of infant torture, we might find different answers from different people. The infant genital mutilation community. Torturing a young or infant child for religious or cultural reasons, not simply for personal pleasure, IS considered justified by a large portion of the people of this planet.

depends on how baselessness is interpereted i guess