3 ms·

> You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. don't assume I am not. You could be making a mistake > there is no

> You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. don't assume I am not. You could be making a mistake > there is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. actually the scientific community has this into their theories. There are two factors: biological factors and the environment. At they beginning they weren't sure about the biological factors so they make test in one day old infants. And there is a high correlation between genre and interest even with one day old.

jholman 9y ago
Respectfully, it very much appears that you do not understand the is/ought distinction. But I assume that you know yourself better than we strangers do. Given that, to most of us, the is/ought distinction makes the sentence "nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be" a tautology, and given that you say 'a lot of studies' have demonstrated otherwise, I'm super curious what you mean. Could you explain, please?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
jholman 9y ago
I just wrote the following response to the child comment that you deleted. So here's my response, in case it's useful to you: -------------- That is totally not what "is/ought distinction" is about, at all. Perhaps start your reading with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem , although I'm sure there are better sources. The idea is that the answer to one of the following two questions is of no use in deciding the answer to the other one: Is it the case that X? Should it be the case that X? -------------- Aside from your confusion about what the word "ought" means, I think the rest of your (now-deleted) comment is straightforwardly correct.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  Ops, I am really sorry. I kept reading and realizing that I was confused and needed to read more. That my comment could be not related and I missunderstood the concept. I wanted to take more time to read and express myself better and so I deleted the comment in order to rewrite it when I came back home after reading more. Your response is useful. Thanks. I don't want this to be out of context. Here exactly my original comment: I assumed in his context he means you are a biological entity but there is not correlation with the abstract entity (the mind). Because of that you can state your personal interests are not linked with your DNA in any way. But this has been probed to be false. Scientist have observed a high correlation between the testosterone and the social skills and interests. As the testosterone that is generated based on our DNA you can link you abstract entity with your physical entity. So scientist can predict how social are you going to be or whether you will be more interested in dolls or mechanical objects before you have even be born. This is the biological factor, and then you have the cultural factor, the one you call "the ought to be". So genetically you have a predisposition to be one way, but this can be shaped by the environment, not only because you can reason about your behavior and change it but because the environment also modifies the DNA and so the levels of testosterone (and more things). How much can you shape the biological predisposition is a good question to answer. For example: I could say that being gay or straight is a biological factor but I doubt any environment factor can change that, maybe you will fake it for the shake of the social acceptance but not changing it. EDIT: I forgot to say that the testosterone has an influence in the plasticity of the brain.

jholman 9y ago

Respectfully, it very much appears that you do not understand the is/ought distinction. But I assume that you know yourself better than we strangers do. Given that, to most of us, the is/ought distinction makes the sentence "nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be" a tautology, and given that you say 'a lot of studies' have demonstrated otherwise, I'm super curious what you mean. Could you explain, please?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

jholman 9y ago

I just wrote the following response to the child comment that you deleted. So here's my response, in case it's useful to you: -------------- That is totally not what "is/ought distinction" is about, at all. Perhaps start your reading with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem , although I'm sure there are better sources. The idea is that the answer to one of the following two questions is of no use in deciding the answer to the other one: Is it the case that X? Should it be the case that X? -------------- Aside from your confusion about what the word "ought" means, I think the rest of your (now-deleted) comment is straightforwardly correct.

jorgemf 9y ago
Ops, I am really sorry. I kept reading and realizing that I was confused and needed to read more. That my comment could be not related and I missunderstood the concept. I wanted to take more time to read and express myself better and so I deleted the comment in order to rewrite it when I came back home after reading more. Your response is useful. Thanks. I don't want this to be out of context. Here exactly my original comment: I assumed in his context he means you are a biological entity but there is not correlation with the abstract entity (the mind). Because of that you can state your personal interests are not linked with your DNA in any way. But this has been probed to be false. Scientist have observed a high correlation between the testosterone and the social skills and interests. As the testosterone that is generated based on our DNA you can link you abstract entity with your physical entity. So scientist can predict how social are you going to be or whether you will be more interested in dolls or mechanical objects before you have even be born. This is the biological factor, and then you have the cultural factor, the one you call "the ought to be". So genetically you have a predisposition to be one way, but this can be shaped by the environment, not only because you can reason about your behavior and change it but because the environment also modifies the DNA and so the levels of testosterone (and more things). How much can you shape the biological predisposition is a good question to answer. For example: I could say that being gay or straight is a biological factor but I doubt any environment factor can change that, maybe you will fake it for the shake of the social acceptance but not changing it. EDIT: I forgot to say that the testosterone has an influence in the plasticity of the brain.