• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      So has slavery and war but I am not advocating for either. We don’t need any more moral ought from and is. What we need is to demand that critical decision be based on the science not based on someone having a dream of a witch turning them into a newt.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Ok? Not sure what to do with that. You assert your feelings and I am supposed to what exactly?

          Humans can be wrong. Humans in large numbers can be wrong. Humans for thousands of years in large numbers can be wrong. This is why we don’t determine what is true and what is false by polling.

          • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Eh just because an individual or a group finds something “meaningful” doesn’t mean, well, anything

            This is the comment from a different user I was originally replying to. I’m not asserting anything other than that widespread belief has “meaning” through its impact on the world. I’m not asserting that those beliefs are factually correct or morally good.

            You seem to think I’m advocating for religion, but I have not been doing that.

    • nifty@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I get what you’re saying, but to me it seems to be conflating anthropological constructs for intrinsic properties.

      Another way to look at it is, what would be the nature of something if someone is not human, or if a human didn’t exist?

      • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Science works on the verifiable. It doesn’t work on things we don’t have to tools to measure, or things which choose not to be measured.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Correct. It has no power to deal with the fictional. Skydaddy and unicorns for example. Which is why we need to turn to logic to defeat those

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            Your biases are showing. There are non-fictional things that science can’t solve. What makes a person good? What is the purpose of this universe and our lives within it? This isn’t even touching on the testing of an unwilling subject. How much can you bench press? If you refuse to take the test, I can only guess.

            There is a place in the world for philosophy, just as there is for science. Using the wrong tool for the job leads to poor results.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              Which is why we need to turn to logic to defeat those

              Literally acknowledged it and you are arguing with me. What’s the point? I admitted it. We use philosophy to deal with the fictional. You mention meaning and I agree, meaning is a fiction. The only thing we are “supposed” to do is be vehicles of selfish genes, fucking until the sun explodes.

              • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                You keep on harping on those things that can’t be verified, while studiously ignoring those which are unknown. The only reasons I can think of are you are avoiding the topic or you are being a troll. There could be other reasons, which could be entirely valid, but they are unknown to me. That doesn’t negate the possibility of their existence, of course, because reality isn’t dependent on my knowledge, or belief.

      • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You’re ultimately just re-expressing the fallacy of scientism though, because in your example you’re just going to end up with aliens who have religions, or stories, or ideas about the future, or ideals, or dreams, or other unverifiable yet alien versions of everything we’ve already discussed.

        Hell, there’s already suggestions out there that animals have such beliefs.

        It’s a natural product of information systems when they get complex enough, there will be confusion, false commitments, compressions, duplications, signs without signifiers, and errant beliefs.

        I get what you’re saying, you’re saying physically A = A, and that “all is all” is all that should concern us, and there is nothing else… But that’s not true for information systems theory.

        You just have to accept that information systems are a factor of what is, even though information isn’t technically physical… It’s more, trans physical. My brain fats are currently typing some information, and it may be stored in another couple of computer languages before it gets to you … but it’s still information, as it willbe inthose other forms and places… In terms of information systems, a container can hold more than it’s capacity… Because there’s information about the information… And that’s difficult to comprehend. But there’s information about the bible that isn’t contained by the bible for instance… Information about someone’s brain that isn’t necessary within that person’s brain… It’s heady stuff.

        So what you’re claiming (A = A = all that matters) shows your beliefs off as a rationalist belief-minimalist realist and logical positivist. It shows you value science and the scientific method …but that’s not the whole of what is, or what can be thought… That’s why philosophy outranks science in its capacity for defining the world…

        …and why sciencism is still a limiting beliefs, regardless of its metaphysical ideals of obtaining total one to one accuracy (yep, science has its own metaphysical ideals).

        Science is one of the most powerful tools humanity has, but you should hold the tool, not the other way around.