Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:18 am It's still alive and well thankfully.
That's how we have cracked the COVID virus.
We've cracked it by describing its proteins and its genetic code. Having good desriptions of the immune system has led to understanding how introducing a modified virus to encourage antibodies.
We do not know WHY this has all happened, only HOW.

Really?

You don't know why we paused the global economy for a year, and for the first time ever in human history?
You don't know why doctors and nurses around the world have been working overtime and have been taking no leave for the last year?
You don't know why scientists construct computational/predictive models and have been spending decades mapping out the human genome?
You don't know why scientists around the world worked towards understanding the disease and developed a vaccine in under 12 months?

Ah. The mystery that is objective morality.

Yeah, "Why" in the sense alluded to in the initial post is about motivation/goal/purpose/etc. Those are things that creatures with minds have, just in case they do (they don't always). Science can describe those mental phenomena, but there are no objective motivations, goals, purposes, etc.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:04 pm Yeah, "Why" in the sense alluded to in the initial post is about motivation/goal/purpose/etc. Those are things that creatures with minds have, just in case they do (they don't always). Science can describe those mental phenomena, but there are no objective motivations, goals, purposes, etc.

Indeed.
But I think your words fall upon deaf ears.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 1:04 pm Yeah, "Why" in the sense alluded to in the initial post is about motivation/goal/purpose/etc. Those are things that creatures with minds have, just in case they do (they don't always). Science can describe those mental phenomena, but there are no objective motivations, goals, purposes, etc.

You are confusing Philosophical objectivity with Scientific objectivity.

Philosophical objectivity is idealised and unattainable - it's impossible thus conceptually self-defeating.
For Scientific objectivity being able to make predictions (better than random) is sufficient.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:40 pm Indeed.
But I think your words fall upon deaf ears.

They fall upon the ears of scientists.

Philosophers are teaching birds how to fly.