LogFAQs > #1042931

LurkerFAQs ( 06.29.2011-09.11.2012 ), Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicSee, this is what amazes me about Black Holes.
ToukaOone
04/18/12 12:10:00 PM
#84:


Because law and politics are both based entirely upon value judgments. "How should society be ordered?" is not a scientific question, but rather a normative one.


I've heard some people try to reduce all political questions to utilitarianism, but that itself is a particular conception of how society should be ordered, one which I suspect few would fully agree with.

Sure they can choose to not agree with utilitarianism (and in fact, there's a lot of reason to believe that utilitarianism is the wrong theory for modeling humans), but there are consequences associated with subscribing to a moral system. Consequences which can then be reduced down to a (mathematical!) decision theory problem. If your moral system is reducible down to a decision theory and it turns out that it's not consistent, then a savvy and malicious person can literally force you into doing what you don't want by exploiting the inconsistency.

So sure, I guess it's nice that continental philosophy has its views on morality? But I'm certainly not going to bet against the side that can freely swindle away money/influence/power away.

I feel like you left some words out here, but assuming I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that animal classification is done for reasons other than animal classification. Like what?

Typo actually. Find is supposed to be 'fund'. Also you didn't address the question that you could answer. Don't drop that thread.

. I still find it a little unusual, given how well-read you are in science, that you would cling to the logical positivism that has been dead and buried in philosophy for quite a long while now.

I like how you understand the psychology of a reductionist when the line you're quoting has nothing relating to logical positivism in it and it doesn't pattern match to my extremely rough wikipedia derived definition in my head.

How do you go from "The best way to understand physics is math and anything else is just fooling yourself" to "Wow why are you going rah rah logical positivism"

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1