Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang>jurota i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win tax is the best thing ever happened to us they tried to kill trump because he's the good guy trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
sorry
I worded it wrongly, ultimately in the end science isn’t certain about world outside of what can be physically observed and even things that are physically observed can be affected by the black swan so not even fully certain there either. If you think otherwise go ahead and show how you can scientifically prove morality.
Wtf lmfao. Sure there are realms where science cant give certainty. I didnt deny that at all. Its just ridiculous to make that claim about science in general. Because there are things that science was able to give us certainty about. Like the earth orbiting the sun for example.
And what do you even mean by "proving morality"? Proving that specific morla values are "correct"? If so, science has nondeal with it.
I dont get the fixation on morality all the time either, because religions also fail at giving us objective morality since god in all major religions changes his mind on a whim
And what do you even mean by "proving morality"? Proving that specific morla values are "correct"? If so, science has nondeal with it.
I dont get the fixation on morality all the time either, because religions also fail at giving us objective morality since god in all major religions changes his mind on a whim
"prove morality", prove moral facts is not something of scientific scope, but it's a philosophical one (but that doesnt mean science doesnt have nothing to say about this topic, only means that is not possible for science determine the nature of it object in the same way science can do in positives sciences like physics, biology, etc).
Metaethics is the discipline whose one of its big concern is if there are moral facts and what are their nature. There is a lot of position someone can adopt in this debate (realism, error theory, cognitivism, non congnitivism, etc).
And there is a lot of other disciplines that their object can't be determined by science alone (epistemology, logic, aesthetics, axiology,
metaphysics, etc).
You can try imagine, e.g, that science can prove that there is such property like "knowledge" and that its possible to prove that this property has sub-properties like "belief", "truth" and "justification". This simply doesnt work. These properties are just postulated to we have a better explanatory resource of an epistemological phenomenon (not psychologist). Even a materialistic reduction of these epistemological and psychological terms to neurobiological ones or give an functionalist account is something of philosophical concern. And another problem is that endorse this positivist position of science make someone commit the naturalist fallacy (confusing causes with reasons, or quid juris with quid fact or normative with descritive dimension, etc)
At least the majority of scientific theorists dont endorse this position.
Metaethics is the discipline whose one of its big concern is if there are moral facts and what are their nature. There is a lot of position someone can adopt in this debate (realism, error theory, cognitivism, non congnitivism, etc).
And there is a lot of other disciplines that their object can't be determined by science alone (epistemology, logic, aesthetics, axiology,
metaphysics, etc).
You can try imagine, e.g, that science can prove that there is such property like "knowledge" and that its possible to prove that this property has sub-properties like "belief", "truth" and "justification". This simply doesnt work. These properties are just postulated to we have a better explanatory resource of an epistemological phenomenon (not psychologist). Even a materialistic reduction of these epistemological and psychological terms to neurobiological ones or give an functionalist account is something of philosophical concern. And another problem is that endorse this positivist position of science make someone commit the naturalist fallacy (confusing causes with reasons, or quid juris with quid fact or normative with descritive dimension, etc)
At least the majority of scientific theorists dont endorse this position.
Last edited:
