What could make morality subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

Proxy-measurement is all you have! That is epistemology for you. If you don't like it, then you have simply failed to deal with the limitations of the human condition.

Nope. Immeasurability is also something we have. The goodness of cheese, the loveliness of a work of art, the cuteness of kittens, the nastiness of cats, these are all fundamentally non-measurable. Measuring some alternative like how many people think cats are nasty is not measuring the nastiness of cats.

Measuring other things that can be measured, such as the number of words in this conversation does not mean that we can measure the pointlessness of this total fucking chore.

We always resort to binary values as all that is 'measurable'. But this doesn't mean that our measures can't include different ones collectively as 'true'. The relative indeterminacy of some 'measure means precisely the contradiction: a measure that is not a measure! So this third possibility you assert is either true and makes it false for being 'immeasurable', or false and makes it true that it IS 'immeasurable'!

Do you want to try again, and see if you can write that out coherently?

[Skepdick]

Nope. Immeasurability is also something we have. The goodness of cheese, the loveliness of a work of art, the cuteness of kittens, the nastiness of cats, these are all fundamentally non-measurable. Measuring some alternative like how many people think cats are nasty is not measuring the nastiness of cats.

1 bit of information is the answer to one yes/no question. It is a unit of measurement

Do you like beer more than cheese?

The answer to that question (as you put it) is either yes or no. To answer is to measure.
That is hardly my issue. My issue is coming up with a way to measure whether you like beer more than cheese.

I could:
A. Ask you and you will tell me (self-reporting)
B. Offer you beer and cheese and see which one you pick (empirical testing)

My dilemma is what happens when your narrative disagrees with my empiricism.
What should I conclude when you SAY that you like beer more than cheese, but you CHOOSE cheese over beer?

What is your 'true belief'? Your narrative or your actual choice?

Measuring other things that can be measured, such as the number of words in this conversation does not mean that we can measure the pointlessness of this total fucking chore.

Whether any particular metric/measurement is useful for any particular purpose is immaterial to the fact that you can measure.

You can measure anything

That you can measure the words in a conversation is fact. Whether you can measure 'pointlessness' is entirely up to devise the experiment which disambiguates the two cases.

[FlashDangerpants]

Nope. Immeasurability is also something we have. The goodness of cheese, the loveliness of a work of art, the cuteness of kittens, the nastiness of cats, these are all fundamentally non-measurable. Measuring some alternative like how many people think cats are nasty is not measuring the nastiness of cats.

1 bit of information is the answer to one yes/no question. It is a unit of measurement

The quantity of nasty in cats is not a quantifiable object, nor reducible to a binary yes/no. This is not my problem, there is zero point in telling my I have failed you by not describing this immeasurable shit in terms you can measure.

This conversation is over.

[Skepdick]

The quantity of nasty in cats is not a quantifiable object, nor reducible to a binary yes/no.

Of course it is! I just quantified it for you. You don't have to like or accept my quantification any more than you have to accept the SI units of science!

If you utter the English sentence "Cats are nasty" you have answered the English question "Are cats nasty?" with a 'Yes'.
If you utter the English sentence 'Cats are not nasty' you have answered the English question "Are cats nasty?" with a 'No'.

The question may be implicit, but the answer is explicit. The entropy of a cat's nastiness is 1 bit of information.

I don't need to know what the word nasty means to you. All that I observe is that whatever that words means to you, you are capable of telling the difference between 'nasty things' and 'non-nasty things'. That is a distinction WITH a difference! Otherwise you wouldn't need the word 'nasty'.

This is the principle of maximum entropy in action.

This is not my problem, there is zero point in telling my I have failed you by not describing this immeasurable shit in terms you can measure.

Where have I told you that you have failed me? I told you that I can measure. I can (and I will continue to) measure anything I want!

I am only trying to point out to you that you are measuring too. You are just lack self-awareness of this fact so you refuse to accept it.

This conversation is over.

Sure. Go and process your cognitive dissonance and come back to me.

[Scott Mayers]

Nope. Immeasurability is also something we have. The goodness of cheese, the loveliness of a work of art, the cuteness of kittens, the nastiness of cats, these are all fundamentally non-measurable. Measuring some alternative like how many people think cats are nasty is not measuring the nastiness of cats.

Measuring other things that can be measured, such as the number of words in this conversation does not mean that we can measure the pointlessness of this total fucking chore.

We always resort to binary values as all that is 'measurable'. But this doesn't mean that our measures can't include different ones collectively as 'true'. The relative indeterminacy of some 'measure means precisely the contradiction: a measure that is not a measure! So this third possibility you assert is either true and makes it false for being 'immeasurable', or false and makes it true that it IS 'immeasurable'!

Do you want to try again, and see if you can write that out coherently?

Oh, I don't know.?? Do you want to teach me how to be 'coherent' in your terms?

Maybe it might help for you to 'own' that YOU do not understand me rather than assume that I 'owe' you the debt of what you alone already 'own'?

[FlashDangerpants]

We always resort to binary values as all that is 'measurable'. But this doesn't mean that our measures can't include different ones collectively as 'true'. The relative indeterminacy of some 'measure means precisely the contradiction: a measure that is not a measure! So this third possibility you assert is either true and makes it false for being 'immeasurable', or false and makes it true that it IS 'immeasurable'!

Do you want to try again, and see if you can write that out coherently?

Oh, I don't know.?? Do you want to teach me how to be 'coherent' in your terms?

Maybe it might help for you to 'own' that YOU do not understand me rather than assume that I 'owe' you the debt of what you alone already 'own'?

Really? I have a fairly simple point that there is no fundamental unit of nastiness, or pain, or any other complete abstractions. Therefore it is a category mistake to try to measure them in the same way as miles of distance or the number of mice in a cage, which are measurable things in some meaningful way.

It is far from obvious that any of that could be reliant on measuring the total immeasurability of an unquantifiable, or whatever that oblique string of innuendo you presented was supposed to mean.

So write it out as a proper argument, or don't. But don't expect the same latitude I give to the neuro-atypcial crowd, where I am prepared to restate in new terms over and over until I am certain there is no avoidable miscommunication arising from the neurotypical vs atypical conversation. I am not asking anything of you that I wouldn't ask of myself here.

[Skepdick]

I have a fairly simple point that there is no fundamental unit of nastiness, or pain, or any other complete abstractions. Therefore it is a category mistake to try to measure them in the same way as miles of distance or the number of mice in a cage, which are measurable things in some meaningful way

The fundamental unit of measurement (ALL measurement - even the SI units of science!!!) is the distinction.
The ability to distinguish A from A on some property other than their relative locations in space.
I measure the ability to draw distinctions in bits: 1 distinction = 1 bit of information. it is meaningful to me.

Either you detect a difference between "nasty cats" and "non-nasty cats", or you you don't.
Either you detect a difference between "painful kick to the balls" and "painless kick to the balls" or you don't.
Either you detect a difference between "abstract ideas" and "non-abstract ideas" or you don't.

If you are trying to convince me that all of the above distinctions are meaningless EVEN TO YOU then I am happy to believe you if you so insist.

But it sure as hell puzzles me: why the hell do you even keep the adjectives "nasty", "painful" and "abstract" in your vocabulary? Why do you keep ANY adjective in your vocabulary?

Adjectives are distinctions without a difference. Get rid of them!

So write it out as a proper argument.

It is obvious that you think the distinction between a "proper argument" and an "improper argument" is a distinction with a difference (else you wouldn't be using the word "proper").

Why don't you go ahead and tell us what the difference is?

[FlashDangerpants]

Either you detect a difference between "nasty cats" and "non-nasty cats", or you you don't.

Subjective.

[Skepdick]

Either you detect a difference between "nasty cats" and "non-nasty cats", or you you don't.

Subjective.

Non-sequitur. If you can detect a difference sufficient to make up your mind, then you have measured (at least) 1 bit of information.

If you are categorizing/sorting - you are measuring. If the information wasn't there, if the difference wasn't measurable, you wouldn't be able to draw the distinction in the first place. You would have only one category - cats. The adjective "nasty" would be unnecessary.

Whatever difference you detect between "nasty" and "non-nasty" cats (temperament, unprovoked aggression, hissing, scratching) - those things are objective and reducible to list of yes/no questions. This is directly related to the Sensitivity Conjecture.

That's how measurement works. Scientists accept and understand this - Philosophers struggle with the reality on the ground.
Either you accept the units/yardstick/axioms or you don't. If you accept the units - then that's "objectivity" for you.

If you don't like it - then make the concessions you need to make and relegate all science as a subjective human endevour.

[FlashDangerpants]

Either you detect a difference between "nasty cats" and "non-nasty cats", or you you don't.

Subjective.

Non-sequitur. If you can detect a difference sufficient to make up your mind, then you have measured (at least) 1 bit of information.

1 bit of information about my preferences. Subjective.

[Skepdick]

1 bit of information about my preferences. Subjective.

So you are outright admitting that your use of the word "nasty" is a distinction without a difference?!?!? What the hell do you expect me (or anybody) to do about that?

I make damn sure that the terms I am using are observable - distinctions with a difference. If I were to talk to you about "nasty cats", I am talking about temperament, aggression, scratching, hissing. Behaviour.

That's measurable information that has nothing to do with my preference.

[FlashDangerpants]

1 bit of information about my preferences. Subjective.

So you are outright admitting that your use of the word "nasty" is a distinction without a difference?!?!? What the hell do you expect me (or anybody) to do about that?

I make damn sure that the terms I am using are observable - distinctions with a difference. If I were to talk to you about "nasty cats", I am talking about temperament, aggression, scratching, hissing. Behaviour.

That's measurable information that has nothing to do with my preference.

Nope. It's a distinction with no particular difference to you. This is the way with subjective judgments on the whole. You are perilously close to arguing that there is no such thing as subjectivity at this point. Baller move, possibly interesting.

Let's try an alternative look though. If I say I don't like sugar in my coffee because sugary coffee is nasty, this is not a measurable thing. You can carry out a survey of 10 million coffee drinkers who say that coffee tastes better with sugar if you have the time. You can ask the 100 preeminent experts in the field of coffee appreciation, and they can unanimously declare me an infidel for drinking unsweetened coffee ... and it makes no difference. Those 10 million and 100 opinions are not objective information that I am wrong about sugary coffee being nasty, they are merely a larger collection of opinions than I am offering. I can be the only person in the world who doesn't like sugar in their coffee, but I can only be unfashionable in this choice, or weird, I can't actually be right or wrong.

The same applies to the example I gave you regarding the Mona Lisa and the laughing cavalier. Iirc, the last time I had to do this routine I told the other guy that this is the greatest song ever recorded. A vanishingly slender minority would agree; far more would say it is one of the worst songs they've ever heard. Nobody is objectively right or wrong, there is no way to measure the objective awesomeness of Skinny Puppy, foolish mortals should never dare to take on such a task.

Any attempt you make to measure these things is just a matter of subsitution. There is no sleight of hand you can perform that will make goodness or badness, either the moral sort or the matters of taste, objectively quantifiable. You are measuring something else, whether that is attitudes or some other placeholder.

[Skepdick]

Nope. It's a distinction with no particular difference to you. This is the way with subjective judgments on the whole. You are perilously close to arguing that there is no such thing as subjectivity at this point. Baller move, possibly interesting.

No particular difference to me YET.

The moment you explain to me the categorization procedure; the moment you teach me how to draw the same distinction (between nasty and non-nasty cats) as you then it becomes 'objective' as far as science is concerned. Reproducibility means "somebody other than you can do what you can do". Done.

That's the "experiment design" part of science. it reduces to this: if it's teachable - it's objective.

Let's try an alternative look though. If I say I don't like sugar in my coffee because sugary coffee is nasty, this is not a measurable thing.

It is absolutely a measurable thing!

I will give you 100 cups of coffee, some with sugar some without (double blind - you won't know which is which), and I'll ask you to tell me which cups of coffee are "nasty". Then we compare your ability to detect sugar (e.g nastiness) relative to a coin. The coin will get it right/wrong 50% of the time by pure luck.

If you make more errors in detecting "nasty" cups of coffee than the coin, then the "nastiness" is entirely in your head. Placebo.

Whatever emotion represents "nastiness" in your head - I don't really care. You prefer your coffee one way or another, and you can actually tell and taste the difference when your coffe is not prepared the way you like it. Your preference is objectively quantified. It's a distinction with a difference - a fact.

You can ask the 100 preeminent experts in the field of coffee appreciation, and they can unanimously declare me an infidel for drinking unsweetened coffee ... and it makes no difference. Those 10 million and 100 opinions are not objective information that I am wrong about sugary coffee being nasty, they are merely a larger collection of opinions than I am offering. I can be the only person in the world who doesn't like sugar in their coffee, but I can only be unfashionable in this choice, or weird, I can't actually be right or wrong.

Gah!!!!! You are conflating perspectives! There is a statistical difference between ensemble averages (group/3rd person perspective), and time averages (Individual/1st person perspective) ! You can't make ANY inferences about individuals from ensemble averages - everybody knows that!

Can you please go do a basic class in statistics?!? I feel like I am trying to explain colours to a colour-blind person.

Any attempt you make to measure these things is just a matter of subsitution. There is no sleight of hand you can perform that will make goodness or badness, either the moral sort or the matters of taste, objectively quantifiable. You are measuring something else, whether that is attitudes or some other placeholder.

No. What I am measuring is the choices you are making. You are merely reducing "goodness", "badness" and all this other stuff to empty verbalism - some mental state or other. What goes in the heads of people is not the business of science - the entire notion of "beliefs and mental states independent from behaviour" is horseshit.

Your, individual choices can be quantified! Your words can be correlated with your actions, alternatively - your actions can contradict your words.

Either way. Behaviour can be measured. Narratives and beliefs can't - that's why (empirically speaking) Philosophy doesn't matter. It's all narrative - semantics.

If you say that "I love coffee and I hate beer", but you keep drinking beer and not coffee how should a scientist interpret your narrative?

[FlashDangerpants]

Let's try an alternative look though. If I say I don't like sugar in my coffee because sugary coffee is nasty, this is not a measurable thing.

It is absolutely a measurable thing!

I will give you 100 cups of coffee, some with sugar some without (double blind - you won't know which is which), and I'll ask you to tell me which cups of coffee are "nasty". Then we compare your ability to detect sugar (e.g nastiness) relative to a coin. The coin will get it right/wrong 50% of the time by pure luck.

If you make more errors in detecting "nasty" cups of coffee than the coin, then the "nastiness" is entirely in your head. Placebo.

Whatever emotion represents "nastiness" in your head - I don't really care. You prefer your coffee one way or another, and you can actually tell and taste the difference when your coffe is not prepared the way you like it. Your preference is objectively quantified. It's a distinction with a difference - a fact.

Either that's a statement of Behaviourism, or it's just irrelevant. If you can't measure the phenomenon of the yucky of the coffee, but you cannot explain it away as non existent, you are merely quantifying the behaviour that you assume for the sake of argument at least tracks that yuck factor. You are still measuring a different thing. I don't give a fuck if that is "sufficient for scientific purposes", I am telling you a thing cannot be measured and you are trying to run a bait and switch on me.

You can ask the 100 preeminent experts in the field of coffee appreciation, and they can unanimously declare me an infidel for drinking unsweetened coffee ... and it makes no difference. Those 10 million and 100 opinions are not objective information that I am wrong about sugary coffee being nasty, they are merely a larger collection of opinions than I am offering. I can be the only person in the world who doesn't like sugar in their coffee, but I can only be unfashionable in this choice, or weird, I can't actually be right or wrong.

Gah!!!!! You are conflating perspectives! There is a statistical difference between ensemble averages (group/3rd person perspective), and time averages (Individual/1st person perspective) ! You can't make ANY inferences about individuals from ensemble averages - everybody knows that!

Can you please go do a basic class in statistics?!? I feel like I am trying to explain colours to a colour-blind person.

So mean, I might get sad. Not really to the point though. I can think that sugary coffee is yucky, then I can change my mind, then I can change it back again. At no point has there been any source of information that I am wrong. This is not an area where there is sufficient objectivity from any source for there to be a right or wrong about whether sugary coffee is just blaaah.

Any attempt you make to measure these things is just a matter of subsitution. There is no sleight of hand you can perform that will make goodness or badness, either the moral sort or the matters of taste, objectively quantifiable. You are measuring something else, whether that is attitudes or some other placeholder.

No. What I am measuring is the choices you are making. You are merely reducing "goodness", "badness" and all this other stuff to empty verbalism - some mental state or other. What goes in the heads of people is not the business of science

Then neither is morality. I am not the one trying to make science do this stuff. That's for you and Prof, I think it's a stupid waste of time.

[Skepdick]

Either that's a statement of Behaviourism, or it's just irrelevant. If you can't measure the phenomenon of the yucky of the coffee, but you cannot explain it away as non existent, you are merely quantifying the behaviour that you assume for the sake of argument at least tracks that yuck factor. You are still measuring a different thing. I don't give a fuck if that is "sufficient for scientific purposes", I am telling you a thing cannot be measured and you are trying to run a bait and switch on me.

I am not explaining it away as non-existent. I am outright acknowledging that you yuck-factor exists! You are just playing a dumb game of perspectivism.

Obviously I can't measure your yuck-factor because I am not in your head.
But you can measure your yuck-factor because you are in your head.

I am telling you that it can be measured and that it is being measured. YOU are measuring it.

You can answer the question "Am I experiencing yuckyness when I drink sugary coffee?" in the affirmative or negative.

You have measured 1 bit of information.

So mean, I might get sad. Not really to the point though. I can think that sugary coffee is yucky, then I can change my mind, then I can change it back again. At no point has there been any source of information that I am wrong.

It's not about "right" or "wrong". Get your Philosophical head out of you Philosophical ass.

Measuring things is a process. Either you can measure something or you can't measure it.

When you change your mind, the answer to "Am I experiencing yuckyness?" changes also!
Guess what? You are still measuring yuckiness! The answer is still yes or no - it's still 1 bit of information.

This is not an area where there is sufficient objectivity from any source for there to be a right or wrong about whether sugary coffee is just blaaah.

If 100 cups of sugary coffee under a double-blind experiment FAIL to produce a "blaaaah" response in you, you can be pretty confident that whatever is causing the "blaaaah" response in your head - it's not the coffee!

Inversely, if the double-blind experiment agrees with your blaah-ness, then what's that for science! You have a blaaaah response to sugary coffee.

What more do you expect out of the process?

Then neither is morality. I am not the one trying to make science do this stuff. That's for you and Prof, I think it's a stupid waste of time.

Science doesn't "do" anything! Science is the process of obtaining information - measurement. Information is a key input to HUMAN decision-making! Information enables informed choice - what decisions you make with the information available to you is entirely up to you.

If morality is about semantic verbalism and definitions, then it's not the business of science.
If morality is about measurement/behaviourism/information then it is the business of science.

Are you reducing morality to empty verbalism and semantics?

Science can tell you that if you do MORE of X then less airplanes will crash (with a specific confidence interval). If you do LESS of X then more airplanes will crash (within a specific confidence interval).

You still get to decide whether your goal is to crash more or less airplanes!

In as much as you have stated a preference for "crashing less airplanes", and in as much as science can help you figure out that most humans on earth share this same preference with you - science can help you figure out a strategy and tactics for actually crashing less airplanes.