tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post4270842565637257785..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: How Morality "Seems" to Sam Harris: A review of The Moral LandscapeMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4154843215034080782011-02-07T03:28:50.705-05:002011-02-07T03:28:50.705-05:00Maybe this will amke it easier to get a handle on ...Maybe this will amke it easier to get a handle on the issue:<br /><br />We both work from the following premise:<br /><br />'What is empricially confirmed is true.'<br /><br />So we both have the same basis from which we go. You make an additional claim:<br /><br />'Some things which have not been or cannot be empricially verified are true.'<br /><br />I don't accept the Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-52970905882152918332011-02-07T03:16:34.576-05:002011-02-07T03:16:34.576-05:00'So either you are saying that your view of tr...'So either you are saying that your view of truth justifies you engaging in contradictory assertions or you're trying to change the subject.'<br /><br />Martin - you are being very misrepresentative again. This is what you asked me in your first question:<br /><br />'So your assertion is:<br /><br />All objective truths are empirically verifiable.'<br /><br />All you asked me Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-70647559370440197342011-02-06T14:56:00.983-05:002011-02-06T14:56:00.983-05:00Singring,
So what does this peculiar view of trut...Singring,<br /><br />So what does this peculiar view of truth you are extrapolating have anything to do with the question I just asked you?<br /><br />I asked you if your assertion that all truth was empirically verifiable was empirically verifiable was true, and you said, "If you are using 'truths' in the sense that I am (as I have described above) [i.e. as empirically verifiable] Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-65108541715991696512011-02-06T05:44:37.799-05:002011-02-06T05:44:37.799-05:00'Have you changed your mind?'
Martin, you...'Have you changed your mind?'<br /><br />Martin, you seem to forget that my definition of 'truth' already contains an element of uncertainty, a tentative character - so nothing I assert or believe is meant to have absolute character.<br /><br />I understand this is difficult for someone who is religious who believes in absolute truths, absolute morals, right and wrong, black and Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63045004416658638222011-02-05T14:08:27.925-05:002011-02-05T14:08:27.925-05:00Singring,
I am trying to reconcile these two comm...Singring,<br /><br />I am trying to reconcile these two comments. First what you said in your last post:<br /><br />1. ME: 'Okay, so the statement "All objective truths are empirically verifiable." is your kind of truth? An empirically verifiable truth?'<br /><br />YOU: No it isn't. <br /><br />And 2. ME: 'All objective truths are empirically verifiable.'<br /><br /Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-14317581143291799392011-02-05T13:50:55.388-05:002011-02-05T13:50:55.388-05:00'Okay, so the statement "All objective tr...'Okay, so the statement "All objective truths are empirically verifiable." is your kind of truth? An empirically verifiable truth?'<br /><br />No it isn't. Its an axiom - a starting premise, if you will. It's what I believe, but I could be wrong. There could be many truths that are not empirically verifiable - the thing is that I have never been given any reason to Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-642219492713578302011-02-05T11:37:54.940-05:002011-02-05T11:37:54.940-05:00Singring,
Okay, so the statement "All object...Singring,<br /><br />Okay, so the statement "All objective truths are empirically verifiable." is your kind of truth? An empirically verifiable truth?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-17562567731444360152011-02-05T11:36:08.262-05:002011-02-05T11:36:08.262-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34165426227310575242011-02-05T05:07:37.019-05:002011-02-05T05:07:37.019-05:00'All objective truths are empirically verifiab...'All objective truths are empirically verifiable.'<br /><br />If you are using 'truths' in the sense that I am (as I have described above), then yes, that is so. Though I have to stress once again that all and any 'truths' arrived at via empiricism are tentative and subject to change should our set of evidence change, so while we may call them 'objective truths' Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-83114910608524709982011-02-04T18:37:43.036-05:002011-02-04T18:37:43.036-05:00Singring,
Yes, your answer to my question whether...Singring,<br /><br />Yes, your answer to my question whether you were assuming that all objective truths are empirical in nature came in about one minute after I had posted that comment.<br /><br />So your assertion is:<br /><br />All objective truths are empirically verifiable.<br /><br />Is that correct?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-62597721130416706482011-02-04T18:26:28.397-05:002011-02-04T18:26:28.397-05:00By the way, the reason I keep putting 'truth&#...By the way, the reason I keep putting 'truth' in apostrphes is because I want to emphasize that we have different understandings of what a 'truth' is. To me, a 'truth' is only so if it applies to reality - in other words, if it has been confirmed by testing it against reality, or if it is derived from a consistent model that has been extensively tested against reality.<br Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-23536710076441750662011-02-04T18:19:37.974-05:002011-02-04T18:19:37.974-05:00'How many more do you want?'
Martin - all...'How many more do you want?'<br /><br />Martin - all these rules of logic you have listed are no more 'true' than the claim that unicorns exist. They have no 'truth' content in and of themselves, such as the statement 'the moon orbits the earth' has. <br /><br />Tell me, how do you know that the Law of non-contradiction is 'true'?<br /><br />All they are Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-71142675047868319062011-02-04T18:11:27.476-05:002011-02-04T18:11:27.476-05:00I just did.I just did.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-76666109823722612532011-02-04T18:05:27.187-05:002011-02-04T18:05:27.187-05:00'Are you or are you not assuming that empirica...'Are you or are you not assuming that empirical method is the only kind of objective inquiry?'<br /><br />I am. However, I am not assuming it as one would any old assertion or idea, I am assuming it because so far as it has proved to be successful. In other words: I can give you any number of 'truths' the empirical method has produced for us, at least to a very high level of Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-29249162220685534532011-02-04T18:01:27.050-05:002011-02-04T18:01:27.050-05:00Singring,
I already asked you once to give me a s...Singring,<br /><br /><i>I already asked you once to give me a single objective truth derived by philosophy - the only one you coulod come up with is that 'science is not the only path to truth'. </i><br /><br />The Law of Non Contradiction.<br /><br />The Dictum de omni<br /><br />The Dictum de nullo<br /><br />The Law of Reciprocal Identity<br /><br />The Law of Reciprocal Non-Identity<Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-47301349705114038502011-02-04T17:51:18.405-05:002011-02-04T17:51:18.405-05:00Singring,
'That dichotomy assumes that empiri...Singring,<br /><br /><i>'That dichotomy assumes that empirical verifiability is the only kind of objective inquiry, which of course it is not.'<br /><br />Then tell me - how exactly in your 'intuition' of what a man has to do with his genitals an objective truth, whereas a gay man's 'intuition' is not?</i><br /><br />That's what you call shifting the ground of Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-13371949252051863632011-02-04T17:24:02.091-05:002011-02-04T17:24:02.091-05:00Martin,
So why is one at the mercy of the "c...Martin,<br /><br />So why is one at the mercy of the "consensus of society" and the other isn't?<br /><br />I didn't say that was the way it should be Martin, only that that is the way it is. Quantum mechanics isn't subject to the "consensus of society" because if the societal consensus is wrong, then computers don't work. Most people's morality, otoh, isKyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-88636389844934887522011-02-04T16:20:27.203-05:002011-02-04T16:20:27.203-05:00'Right. Just as there is no empirically verifi...'Right. Just as there is no empirically verifiable way of arriving at the conclusion that empirical verifiability is the test of moral claims.'<br /><br />Correct. I never claimed there was. Remeber - I am a complete moral subjectivist. In other words, I don't believe there is any way to derive objective moral rules, whether by empirical methods or otherwise. So while that may be a Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-71484039433784326422011-02-04T16:16:56.245-05:002011-02-04T16:16:56.245-05:00'That dichotomy assumes that empirical verifia...'That dichotomy assumes that empirical verifiability is the only kind of objective inquiry, which of course it is not.'<br /><br />Then tell me - how exactly in your 'intuition' of what a man has to do with his genitals an objective truth, whereas a gay man's 'intuition' is not?<br /><br />I already asked you once to give me a single objective truth derived by Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64184419977584878762011-02-04T15:36:40.853-05:002011-02-04T15:36:40.853-05:00What we are left with are subjective, that is to s...<i>What we are left with are subjective, that is to say completely relative, standards by which we derive moral rules</i><br /><br />Only if you accept the false dichotomy between empirical verifiability and subjectivism. That dichotomy assumes that empirical verifiability is the only kind of objective inquiry, which of course it is not.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36477428777209772852011-02-04T15:34:39.861-05:002011-02-04T15:34:39.861-05:00Singring,
So then we are agreed - there is no emp...Singring,<br /><br /><i>So then we are agreed - there is no empirically verifyable way of arriving at moral rules.</i><br /><br />Right. Just as there is no empirically verifiable way of arriving at the conclusion that empirical verifiability is the test of moral claims.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-51491570880492699912011-02-04T15:25:17.444-05:002011-02-04T15:25:17.444-05:00'I think it is fairly clear that I was applyin...'I think it is fairly clear that I was applying KyCobb's own reasoning to another, similar case. Go look up "reductio ad absurdum."'<br /><br />Of course you were. But the implication was that we <i>can't</i> rely on censensus to derive morals because - just like in science - we have better ways (i.e. empirical) of doing so.<br /><br />So what are they?<br /><br />'Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-39911357540729988682011-02-04T14:46:47.811-05:002011-02-04T14:46:47.811-05:00And morality is about the application of formal an...And morality is about the application of formal and final causation to human behavior. So why is one at the mercy of the "consensus of society" and the other isn't?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-15863521998009606732011-02-04T13:08:49.244-05:002011-02-04T13:08:49.244-05:00Science is about the application of theory to obse...Science is about the application of theory to observable facts. You can't do that with ethics.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79591988512863867692011-02-04T12:51:18.099-05:002011-02-04T12:51:18.099-05:00Singring,
I'd love to see any empirical evide...Singring,<br /><br /><i>I'd love to see any empirical evidence that shows there is a moral rule that states abortion is wrong in all or most cases.</i><br /><br />Then maybe we could investigate the historical evidence that triangles have three sides, or the mathematical proof that I like the taste of spinach, or the chemical evidence that Shakespeare's <i>Hamlet</i> is better than last Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.com