6 ms·

If a large portion of the population does not value or understand science, how can you have a rational debate on values?

nsxwolf 10y ago
Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept, and future policy decisions should reflect that consensus. You'd resist those policy proposals, and I think most people would. You'd base that resistance on your values - values, which in this case at least, you did NOT derive from the scientific consensus. My point is there are non-scientific origins for value systems, and they are more real and valid than scientifically derived ones - science can only give you facts about the material universe.
- whateveracct 10y ago
  > Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept That last part is a value statement that I doubt science could prove.
  - kazinator 10y ago
    Consciousness (and pain) aren't illusions because they correspond to external phenomena, and have a significant objective component. An illusion is something that nobody else can experience, even partially, other than the subject having the illusion. Even if free will is rule-based at some low-level, that doesn't erase the concept of rights. We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. Rights are not pinned to free will. They are mostly about declaring certain unwanted actions of others to be wrong and punishable. Whether those unwanted actions are the result of free will, or whether they are deterministic, is immaterial. At most, that consideration only influences how we regard a violation of right; we might be somewhat more lenient if we believe that it was inevitable. This is why the criminal courts take a particular view toward defendants who are mentally deficient or insane; in effect, this is based on the belief that those people possess less free will. It is never declared, however, that whatever they did was OK.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. You're really positing this as actual serious intellectual output? Just because it uses the same word does not mean that "rights" in the context of a server instance has anything to do with rights in the context of human rights. <facepalm>
      - kazinator 10y ago
        I don't see the difference. Rights is just some security-related descriptor of an object, whether that be a human being or a Wi-Fi router or whatever. I generally don't equivocate over word semantics.
        eveningcoffee 10y ago
        Perhaps you could provide few examples that relate to humans?
    - dwaltrip 10y ago
      A server instance has no legal rights. The human controlling the server has certain legal rights in how they are allowed to configure and operate it. For example, as granted by the first amendment, they can serve a large variety of content to visitors, etc. This is a pretty important distinction.
- hx87 10y ago
  Your point is right, but your example is terribly flawed, because as whateveracct notes, > and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept is a value judgement that cannot be derived from scientific principles.
  - nsxwolf 10y ago
    That's the very point I'm making, that you can't derive values that way, and yet many people insist we do so anyway. Like climate change - we've proven man is responsible for global warming therefore we must do x, y, and z about it. The fact that mankind is responsible from global warming has nothing to do with needing to do something about it, or what exactly should be done. But it's always spoken about in terms of "science insists we must do something/this about it".
    - whyaduck 10y ago
      You've skipped over a key part of the argument for taking action to reduce climate change: we've proven man is responsible for global warming, our models show devastating things a, b and c happening due to warming, therefore we must do x, y and z about it.
      - nsxwolf 10y ago
        Or, its possible to arrive at the conclusion that doing something about climate change would plunge billions back into poverty, starvation and death, and decide against doing those things.
hx87 10y ago
You can certainly have a rational debate on values without much understanding of science, but rational debate on policies to reach those goals would be impossible.

nsxwolf 10y ago

Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept, and future policy decisions should reflect that consensus. You'd resist those policy proposals, and I think most people would. You'd base that resistance on your values - values, which in this case at least, you did NOT derive from the scientific consensus. My point is there are non-scientific origins for value systems, and they are more real and valid than scientifically derived ones - science can only give you facts about the material universe.

whateveracct 10y ago
> Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept That last part is a value statement that I doubt science could prove.
- kazinator 10y ago
  Consciousness (and pain) aren't illusions because they correspond to external phenomena, and have a significant objective component. An illusion is something that nobody else can experience, even partially, other than the subject having the illusion. Even if free will is rule-based at some low-level, that doesn't erase the concept of rights. We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. Rights are not pinned to free will. They are mostly about declaring certain unwanted actions of others to be wrong and punishable. Whether those unwanted actions are the result of free will, or whether they are deterministic, is immaterial. At most, that consideration only influences how we regard a violation of right; we might be somewhat more lenient if we believe that it was inevitable. This is why the criminal courts take a particular view toward defendants who are mentally deficient or insane; in effect, this is based on the belief that those people possess less free will. It is never declared, however, that whatever they did was OK.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. You're really positing this as actual serious intellectual output? Just because it uses the same word does not mean that "rights" in the context of a server instance has anything to do with rights in the context of human rights. <facepalm>
    - kazinator 10y ago
      I don't see the difference. Rights is just some security-related descriptor of an object, whether that be a human being or a Wi-Fi router or whatever. I generally don't equivocate over word semantics.
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        Perhaps you could provide few examples that relate to humans?
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    A server instance has no legal rights. The human controlling the server has certain legal rights in how they are allowed to configure and operate it. For example, as granted by the first amendment, they can serve a large variety of content to visitors, etc. This is a pretty important distinction.
hx87 10y ago
Your point is right, but your example is terribly flawed, because as whateveracct notes, > and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept is a value judgement that cannot be derived from scientific principles.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  That's the very point I'm making, that you can't derive values that way, and yet many people insist we do so anyway. Like climate change - we've proven man is responsible for global warming therefore we must do x, y, and z about it. The fact that mankind is responsible from global warming has nothing to do with needing to do something about it, or what exactly should be done. But it's always spoken about in terms of "science insists we must do something/this about it".
  - whyaduck 10y ago
    You've skipped over a key part of the argument for taking action to reduce climate change: we've proven man is responsible for global warming, our models show devastating things a, b and c happening due to warming, therefore we must do x, y and z about it.
    - nsxwolf 10y ago
      Or, its possible to arrive at the conclusion that doing something about climate change would plunge billions back into poverty, starvation and death, and decide against doing those things.

hx87 10y ago

You can certainly have a rational debate on values without much understanding of science, but rational debate on policies to reach those goals would be impossible.