What could make morality objective?

[Skepdick]

Show me evidences,
That "the Earth orbit the Sun" is not a scientific truth and fact derived from the heliocentric model.

"All planets orbit the sun" is not "derived from" the heliocentric model. It's the axiom of the heliocentric model. The premise.

It's true because it's defined to be true. The Sun is defined to be the "fixed point" in the system.

If that's a "scientific truth", then so is the following sentence. Veritas Aequitas is a dumb philosopher.

The heliocentric model is a sub-model within the greater Scientific Model which generate scientific truths, facts, theories, knowledge.

There is no such thing as "the greater Scientific Model" you are still making shit up.

You can look at The Universe at different levels of abstraction.

You can start big and go small: cosmology towards quantum physics.
You can start small and go big: quantum physics towards cosmology.

You can look at the Solar System at different levels of abstractions. Geocentric, Heliocentric, Barriocentric.

They are different conceptual models (reference frames) for the same thing. The object of observation doesn't change - the observer's viewpoint/context does.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote :

That the Earth orbit the Sun is not a model but a scientific truth abstracted from a scientific model, i.e. the Scientific Method.

The method is not the model. The model/paradigm is heliocentrism and all the 'truths' heliocentrism implies.

Nomic connections such as those of heliocentrism are not narrative 'truths' : causal chains include narrative 'truths'.

Show me evidences,
That "the Earth orbit the Sun" is not a scientific truth and fact derived from the heliocentric model.
The heliocentric model is a sub-model within the greater Scientific Model which generate scientific truths, facts, theories, knowledge.

I cannot show you evidences as I don't know what these are but take them on trust from the trustworthy people who have informed me. Anyway, there are no evidences of the truth of negative propositions, but I understand what you mean.

The heliocentric model is as you say a sub model within a wider paradigm. There is no finality attached to the "greater Scientific Model which generate scientific truths, facts, theories, knowledge." No reputable scientist would claim finality. Even the Pope no longer claims to be infallible.

For practical purposes the modern, not the post modern, attitude towards scientific facts is best. However we are not doing science here, but philosophy and particularly philosophy of science.

[Skepdick]

For practical purposes the modern, not the post modern, attitude towards scientific facts is best. However we are not doing science here, but philosophy and particularly philosophy of science.

Therein lies the paradox.

For any and all practical purposes the philosophy of science is as useful to scientists, as the philosophy of flying is useful to birds.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas wrote :



The method is not the model. The model/paradigm is heliocentrism and all the 'truths' heliocentrism implies.

Nomic connections such as those of heliocentrism are not narrative 'truths' : causal chains include narrative 'truths'.

Show me evidences,
That "the Earth orbit the Sun" is not a scientific truth and fact derived from the heliocentric model.
The heliocentric model is a sub-model within the greater Scientific Model which generate scientific truths, facts, theories, knowledge.

The heliocentric model is as you say a sub model within a wider paradigm. There is no finality attached to the "greater Scientific Model which generate scientific truths, facts, theories, knowledge." No reputable scientist would claim finality. Even the Pope no longer claims to be infallible.

Re the scientific model, I mean the Scientific Method.
In a way, the Scientific Method is a sort of Model.

The scientific method as a model do not enable absolute truths, thus no absolute finality.
Whatever is scientifically true is conditioned and qualified to the scientific method and peer review.

Thus whenever we mention scientific truths it is always implied

For practical purposes the modern, not the post modern, attitude towards scientific facts is best. However we are not doing science here, but philosophy and particularly philosophy of science.

The majority of scientists doing the older sciences do not bother much with the above but merely strive to produce results that conform to the Scientific Method.

However at the finer levels of Science with its paradoxes as in Quantum Physics, Neurosciences, consciousness, etc., scientists has no choice but are pushed into resorting to "Philosophy" to break through bottle necks and shifting paradigms to ensure results.

Note Bohr, Heisenberg, and gang were very much into Philosophy.

Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science
Werner Heisenberg
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Philosop ... 0061209198

Bohr was so appreciative of the Philosophies of Taoism that he incorporated the Yin-Yang symbol in his coats-of-arms.

I used to be informed, for those undergraduates in Physics, basic Philosophy is one necessary subject.

• Example as in Oxford and most advanced universities.
  Physics and Philosophy
  http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergra ... philosophy
  
  This course combines the most rigorous and fundamental subjects in the sciences and the arts. Physics is concerned with unravelling the complexities of the universe from the smallest to the largest scale. Philosophy deals with foundational questions of the most general kind: what there is, what we know and how we came to know it, and how we ought to act and structure our lives. Central to both subjects is the development and application of clear and precise thinking to foundational problems, the questioning of received wisdom and the critical articulation of ideas which aim for an understanding of how things are, in the broadest possible terms.

[Skepdick]

Re the scientific model, I mean the Scientific Method.
In a way, the Scientific Method is a sort of Model.

The scientific method as a model do not enable absolute truths, thus no absolute finality.
Whatever is scientifically true is conditioned and qualified to the scientific method and peer review.

There is no such thing as "the Scientific Method". You keep making shit up!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re the scientific model, I mean the Scientific Method.
In a way, the Scientific Method is a sort of Model.

The scientific method as a model do not enable absolute truths, thus no absolute finality.
Whatever is scientifically true is conditioned and qualified to the scientific method and peer review.

There is no such thing as "the Scientific Method". You keep making shit up!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

Stupid to bank on merely one person's superficial view only.

Science is grounded on intersubjective consensus.
There is no major consensus to Feyerabend's view, thus he was ostracized from the Scientific Community.

• Scholarly reception
  Some have seen the publication of Against Method as leading to Feyerabend's isolation from the community of philosophers of science, who objected to his view that there is no such thing as the scientific method.[11]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_M ... _reception

I am expecting more stupid and immature philosophical views from you - in Ignored mode.

[Skepdick]

Stupid to bank on merely one person's superficial view only.

Science is grounded on intersubjective consensus.
There is no major consensus to Feyerabend's view, thus he was ostracized from the Scientific Community.

• Scholarly reception
  Some have seen the publication of Against Method as leading to Feyerabend's isolation from the community of philosophers of science, who objected to his view that there is no such thing as the scientific method.[11]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_M ... _reception

Dumb philosopher. Fayerabend was isolated by philosophers of science, Fayerabend's view is welcomed and embraced by practicing scientists.

When practicing scientists keep telling you that there is no scientific method, and philosophers of science insist that there is - it's the philosophers who are lying, not the practitioners.

I am expecting more stupid and immature philosophical views from you - in Ignored mode.

Are you paying any fucking attention?!? I offer no philosophical views! I offer a scientific view. That's why you should probably listen to me when I tell you - there is no fucking scientific method.

And if you don't want to listen to me (because I keep pointing out that you are a dumb philosopher), then listen to Einstein.

The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research. (Einstein 1949, 683–684)

How science is done in practice and how research/experiment results are published/presented are two very different things.

In Ignored mode.

Yes!!! Defend your religion! Protect your echo-chamber. Do not allow reason/evidence to prevail! Uphold the dogma!

Dumb philosopher.

[Belinda]

Lovely piece of written prose from Einstein thanks for that Skepdick.

As for Bohr, and his love for the Yin Yang symbol I love it too because change itself defines existence itself. I wonder if there is any philosopher who can deny change itself defines existence itself.

Even Plato did not deny relativity and change are basic to all but those who have seen eternal being. In this regard is Plato what we may nowadays call a high Tory?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Lovely piece of written prose from Einstein thanks for that Skepdick.

As for Bohr, and his love for the Yin Yang symbol I love it too because change itself defines existence itself. I wonder if there is any philosopher who can deny change itself defines existence itself.

Even Plato did not deny relativity and change are basic to all but those who have seen eternal being. In this regard is Plato what we may nowadays call a high Tory?

Whilst Newton's theories are still valid at present, but they are only valid within Newton's defined conditions.

Einstein went one-up on Newton with his own theories on Special Relativity and Gravity at a more refined level of reality.

Whilst Einstein's theories are still valid at present as qualified, the reality of QM theories are one-up on Einstein's world of reality.

Thus it is definitely dumb [& immature and shooting blindly] for Skepdick to use Einstein's lower level of reality to counter the higher and more refined QM perspective of reality.

As for Bohr and Yin-Yang, my point is at the higher level of more refined reality, philosophy in general and Philosophy of Science has to intermingle with Science itself.

[Skepdick]

Whilst Einstein's theories are still valid at present as qualified, the reality of QM theories are one-up on Einstein's world of reality.

No, they aren't "one-up". GR and QFT are just different perspectives.

GR concerns itself with the universe at large scale.
QFT concerns itself with the universe at small scale.

GR is not applicable at small scale. QFT is not applicable at large scale. They are both useful models within their respective domains of applicability.

They also contradict each other.

Thus it is definitely dumb [& immature and shooting blindly] for Skepdick to use Einstein's lower level of reality to counter the higher and more refined QM perspective of reality.

Dumb philosopher. It is QFT that concerns itself with the 'lower levels of reality', and GR that concerns itself with the 'higher levels'.

To say that one is "more refined" than the other is to further demonstrate how dumb you are.

Why do I have to keep explaining this to you? Can't you use Wikipedia to learn?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws seem to require a single direction.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Stupid to bank on merely one person's superficial view only.

Science is grounded on intersubjective consensus.
There is no major consensus to Feyerabend's view, thus he was ostracized from the Scientific Community.

• Scholarly reception
  Some have seen the publication of Against Method as leading to Feyerabend's isolation from the community of philosophers of science, who objected to his view that there is no such thing as the scientific method.[11]
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_M ... _reception

Dumb philosopher. Fayerabend was isolated by philosophers of science, Fayerabend's view is welcomed and embraced by practicing scientists.

When practicing scientists keep telling you that there is no scientific method, and philosophers of science insist that there is - it's the philosophers who are lying, not the practitioners.

I am expecting more stupid and immature philosophical views from you - in Ignored mode.

Are you paying any fucking attention?!? I offer no philosophical views! I offer a scientific view. That's why you should probably listen to me when I tell you - there is no fucking scientific method.

And if you don't want to listen to me (because I keep pointing out that you are a dumb philosopher), then listen to Einstein.

The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research. (Einstein 1949, 683–684)

How science is done in practice and how research/experiment results are published/presented are two very different things.

In Ignored mode.

Yes!!! Defend your religion! Protect your echo-chamber. Do not allow reason/evidence to prevail! Uphold the dogma!

Dumb philosopher.

Yet another dumb, archaic idiot hocking pop scientism who simply can't handle the superiority of philosophy over scientific nonsense which hasn't been relevant in the real world since at least the 17th century outside of anti-intellectual popsci media which is primarily just a marketing gimmick for selling cell phones and protein suppliments, using outdated 19th century scientific information, marketed to the 100 IQ or 6th grade reading level, which is what the average undereducated moron mindlessly regurgitating popsci articles or tidbits from Wikipedia - in a monotone voice which would dry a woman's pussy up faster than a Klondike Bar in the middle of the Sahara Sahara Desert, reads at to begin with.

No one important in the academic world today outside of said 6th grade reading level nonsense takes outdated scientistic propaganda any more seriously than they do the Catholic Chatechism anymore, outside of the minority of industry cranks or hacks who happen to work in some low level, economically irrelevant "science" job, who is generally just regurgitating scientistic propaganda and other anti-intellectual nonsense, more due to his deficits in social or emotional intelligence, and lack of anything approaching well-roundedless in knowledge, academia, or world affairs outside of his tiny industry, based on archaic philosophical axioms such as reductionism and atomism, which are easily debunked, archaic 19th century holdovers, and have arguably always been archaic and limited in scope since the ancient days of Epicurus and atomists who were the forerunners to the modern conceptions of it; just as nonsensical and full of logical problems today as it was back then.

Hopefully eventually those kooks will just be replaced by more efficient robots who do the 'work' twice as fast, don't smell half as bad, and are less prone to making creepy advances at nonconsenting women and barely legal girls, or touching themselves in public.

[Skepdick]

Yet another dumb, archaic idiot hocking pop scientism who simply can't handle the superiority of philosophy over scientific nonsense

If philosophy is superior over science, what is it superior for? How do you measure this claimed "superiority" ?

which hasn't been relevant in the real world since at least the 17th century....

No one important in the academic world today outside of said 6th grade reading level nonsense takes outdated scientistic propaganda any more seriously than they do the Catholic Chatechism anymore

That's pretty ironic. Nobody important in the real world takes academia or philosophy seriously.

If you were a scientist you wouldn't have to rely on anybody's propaganda - the data is out there. Examint it yourself - draw your own conclusions. Think for yourself.

Too bad most of those who call themselves 'philosophers' today (lovers of wisdom) don't know the first damn thing about data analysis. Apparently statistics/information theory is beneath philosophy.

The rest of your comment is a pointless strawman that deserves no response.

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

there is no fucking scientific method.

But is there not a set of scientific rules for people who are sampling for statistics for instance? And may not these rules join with other methods, for instance how to do precise as possible measuring in a chemistry lab, to make a rather long exposition that may be called the scientific method?

[IvoryBlackBishop]

If philosophy is superior over science, what is it superior for? How do you measure this claimed "superiority" ?

By the comparative rarity of high level philosophy jobs, as opposed to the many dime-a-dozen low level "science" jobs heavily advertised and propagated by 6th grade reading level mass media as a sales mechanism, most not even updated from archaic little 19th century tidbits, and mainly for the purpose of selling consumerist trinkets like cell phones, washing machines, and video game consoles to people who religiously consume 6th grade reading level scientistic propaganda and nonsensicalities.

The only purposes the natural sciences serve are either an aesthetic one, akin to philosophy (which if they fail at, are therefore worthless), or simple pragmatics and pratical uses within specific industries and job sectors, which in that regard makes them no different than any other "skill", "work", or "applied sciences", such as plumbing and cable-Tv installation.

That's pretty ironic. Nobody important in the real world takes academia or philosophy seriously.

Nobody in the real world who doesn't take academia or philosophy seriously is remotely important, if you mean low-level industry "workmen" who cares, aside from a mostly fictious and irrelevant "science" or "engineering" title, which bares as little resemblance to an actual Newton or Einstein as a weekend golfer does to Tiger Woods or Arnold Palmer.

At the bare minimum, most of them are easily automated anyway, and for the sake of their wife and their wives' boyfriends' mutual sex lives, hopefully will be sooner, rather than later. (Thank God, or evolution if you prefer, likewise, for no-fault divorce laws).

If you were a scientist you wouldn't have to rely on anybody's propaganda
- the data is out there. Examint it yourself - draw your own conclusions. Think for yourself.

Yawn... what a silly false dichotomy; the propaganda you would be relying are would be Francis Bacon's archaic, 17th century philosophical axioms, based on fallacies such as "empiricism", "reductionism", "induction" (as opposed to de-duction and superior systems for the gaining of knowledge, such as the superiority of the anecdotal), and so on.

Thankfully none of the dated "natural sciences" will ever be a "pure science" in the sense that pure mathematics (as opposed to ugly, anti-intellectual "arithmetic" is anyway, much as the natural sciences themselves will likely go more or less extinct in the near future aside from whatever minority of economic industries still rely on them for pragmatic purposes; with computational and informational sciences likely being the new frontier for gaining meaningful knowledge and innovation.

Too bad most of those who call themselves 'philosophers' today (lovers of wisdom) don't know the first damn thing about data analysis. Apparently statistics/information theory is beneath philosophy.

That's for poorly coded robots and ugly people to do, I see no reason why a philosopher should taint himself with that archaism and mathematically inferiorly designed "methology", which will hopefully be automated by actual robots in the foreseeable future, who are less prone to groping younger women and delving far less than stellar sexual performance for the "wives" who are aesthetically deprived enough to actually mary an archaic old primate or rather shallow and superficial throwback (by the very definitions of it) like that to begin with.

You can't say "analysis" without saying "anal". Synthesis is arguably a far superior axiom than outdated analysis.

[Skepdick]

If philosophy is superior over science, what is it superior for? How do you measure this claimed "superiority" ?

By the comparative rarity of high level philosophy jobs

So, philosophy is superior because it's rare? What about all the jobs that no longer exist (because automation/technical progress)? Those must be the most superior jobs out there...

Surely the rarity of philosophical jobs indicates lack of demand for philosophers.

The only purposes the natural sciences serve are either an aesthetic one, akin to philosophy (which if they fail at, are therefore worthless), or simple pragmatics and pratical uses within specific industries and job sectors, which in that regard makes them no different than any other "skill", "work", or "applied sciences", such as plumbing and cable-Tv installation.

I am not sure what your point is. Plumbers are way more valuable to society than philosophers - that's why there's more jobs for plumbers than philosophers.

Nobody in the real world who doesn't take academia or philosophy seriously is remotely important.

It really depends on how you measure "importance".

Yawn... what a silly false dichotomy; the propaganda you would be relying are would be Francis Bacon's archaic, 17th century philosophical axioms, based on fallacies such as "empiricism", "reductionism", "induction" (as opposed to de-duction and superior systems for the gaining of knowledge, such as the superiority of the anecdotal), and so on.

If that's your best effort at dismissing me - so be it. You can use the search function to convince yourself that "Axiomatics is a poor man's logic" is a phrase I cherish. I am a practitioner - not a philosopher. Philosophy is bullshit.

Do observe though. While you seem to place great value/importance on 'knowledge' - you still have no good story on utility.

What is knowledge useful for? If it's not useful - who needs it?

Thankfully none of the dated "natural sciences" will ever be a "pure science" in the sense that pure mathematics (as opposed to ugly, anti-intellectual "arithmetic" is anyway, much as the natural sciences themselves will likely go more or less extinct in the near future aside from whatever minority of economic industries still rely on them for pragmatic purposes; with computational and informational sciences likely being the new frontier for gaining meaningful knowledge and innovation.

Since I am a computer scientist, i can't really tell what you are arguing for. Or against.

You can't say "analysis" without saying "anal". Synthesis is arguably a far superior axiom than outdated analysis.

Great! Then are on the same page. I am a radical constructivist.

All that you call 'knowledge' is just language. Formal models.

Philosophy is nothing more than conceptual design. It's useful (pragmatic) for navigating reality - otherwise, it's bullshit that goes no further than language games.

The science of language (linguistics), and the science of games (game theory) are both in the domain of computer science.