5 ms·

I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as an authority. Science is really good at transmitting information about deterministic processes, but

I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as an authority. Science is really good at transmitting information about deterministic processes, but is really bad at transmitting information about non-deterministic processes or even processes that are so complex that they appear non-deterministic e.g. human behavior. I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that helps people think long term. It's not a bad idea to use tools like this, especially since all attempts so far to design a "science of morality" have been bloody, catastrophic failures.

CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago
> I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that helps people think long term. At first glance things like this can sound good. However, religious ideologies like this are always double edged swords. In India, their caste system is heavily reinforced by the believe that people in a lower caste were "bad people" in a past life, and so there are no reservations about subjugating or otherwise discriminating against them. This _always_ tends to happen to _every_ spiritual law scheme eventually, under different cultures. If a religion has enough followers, people have used its (seemingly good natured) ideology to kill and discriminate against those they don't like. This is the nature of humanity, I doubt there is any possible spiritual teachings that wouldn't eventually fall into this trap.
- IIAOPSW 5y ago
  Your causation is backwards. People who feel like discriminating find a rationalization for their beliefs post hoc. Yes religious ideologies have been used to justify racism, but so to has there been "scientific racism" with with all its babbling on about skull sizes. If it weren't science or religion then it would be something else. The underlying issue is some people are bastards.
tinco 5y ago
> I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as an authority. Science is the only and ultimate final authority. It really is not a bad assumption. There literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition. > but is really bad at transmitting information about non-deterministic processes or even processes that are so complex that they appear non-deterministic e.g. human behavior. No it is not, science functions perfectly fine for complex processes. We can describe and draw actionable conclusions from the behaviours of fluids and gases even though they are made up of inconceivably complex interactions of billions of quantum effects. We could easily model most of human behaviour if we really wanted to. It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we refrain from it. We make do with observing humans in the wild, and the observations we make sometimes have enough significance to make weak statements about human behaviours. If the belief in reincarnation could be used as a moral tool to help people think long term, that should be scientifically demonstrable if it's true. It would be a hard ethical argument though, as you're basically trading a persons ability to make correct judgements of their own safety and well-being for a larger "long term" better functioning society. Not saying it's definitely wrong, but it better lead to a much better world for it to be worth it.
- CTmystery 5y ago
  > Science is the only and ultimate final authority Junk science led to the American eugenics movement that included forced sterilization of 64k Americans in the early 1900s. I love science, but calling it the only and ultimate authoritity leaves a lot of room to create a world we don't want to live in. This happens because scientists disagree themselves on almost everything. Recognizing the difference in science as an ideal versus science put in practice makes me not want to agree with your statement.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Utilizing data to continuous refine one's model of the world is the ultimate final authority. Some people call it science, some call it the scientific method, etc.
    - CTmystery 5y ago
      Sure, it's a great method for understanding causal relationships in the world. It's also a method that humans invented, and it's not proven that some future invented method could not provide as much insight into the world as the scientific method. Calling it the ultimate authority and saying that "here literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition" is hard to defend IMO. Science gets its authority from consensus, right now we all agree that science should be granted authority! But it is clearly lacking as an all encompassing tool for understanding: How does the scientific method teach morality? It's not clear that it even can.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      And some other people call it delusion, hubris, flawed epistemology, ironic, etc.
  - tinco 5y ago
    That it's the ultimate authority doesn't mean you should always believe it. It's just the best we've got. It's the best thing about science is that it's explicit about the bounds of what we know and don't know. You don't ask a scientist what you should do, you ask a scientist what they think is true, and what the options are and what their estimated outcomes are. It's always you yourself who make the decision. Regardless if there was junk science in the early 1900s (don't know much about it but wouldn't be surprised), it was people who decided to sterilize people. Just as it's people who decide to kill people for Jesus Christ or Allah or whatever excuse they come up with. Even if the science were true, and some subset of Americans is less intelligent or more violent or whatever, it still wouldn't change the fact that now we've decided that eugenics is unethical. We embrace diversity because that's what aligns to our values. Maybe if we're in the middle of famine and war our values will shift again. The authority of science has nothing to do with it.
efdee 5y ago
> I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that helps people think long term. I find this highly offensive. The people must be lied to so they can do the thing that's best for them, because they can't come to this conclusion in a way that doesn't involve lieing.

CapmCrackaWaka 5y ago

> I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that helps people think long term. At first glance things like this can sound good. However, religious ideologies like this are always double edged swords. In India, their caste system is heavily reinforced by the believe that people in a lower caste were "bad people" in a past life, and so there are no reservations about subjugating or otherwise discriminating against them. This _always_ tends to happen to _every_ spiritual law scheme eventually, under different cultures. If a religion has enough followers, people have used its (seemingly good natured) ideology to kill and discriminate against those they don't like. This is the nature of humanity, I doubt there is any possible spiritual teachings that wouldn't eventually fall into this trap.

IIAOPSW 5y ago
Your causation is backwards. People who feel like discriminating find a rationalization for their beliefs post hoc. Yes religious ideologies have been used to justify racism, but so to has there been "scientific racism" with with all its babbling on about skull sizes. If it weren't science or religion then it would be something else. The underlying issue is some people are bastards.

tinco 5y ago

> I'd ask you to check your basic assumption about science as an authority. Science is the only and ultimate final authority. It really is not a bad assumption. There literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition. > but is really bad at transmitting information about non-deterministic processes or even processes that are so complex that they appear non-deterministic e.g. human behavior. No it is not, science functions perfectly fine for complex processes. We can describe and draw actionable conclusions from the behaviours of fluids and gases even though they are made up of inconceivably complex interactions of billions of quantum effects. We could easily model most of human behaviour if we really wanted to. It is just that it is unethical to do so, so we refrain from it. We make do with observing humans in the wild, and the observations we make sometimes have enough significance to make weak statements about human behaviours. If the belief in reincarnation could be used as a moral tool to help people think long term, that should be scientifically demonstrable if it's true. It would be a hard ethical argument though, as you're basically trading a persons ability to make correct judgements of their own safety and well-being for a larger "long term" better functioning society. Not saying it's definitely wrong, but it better lead to a much better world for it to be worth it.

CTmystery 5y ago
> Science is the only and ultimate final authority Junk science led to the American eugenics movement that included forced sterilization of 64k Americans in the early 1900s. I love science, but calling it the only and ultimate authoritity leaves a lot of room to create a world we don't want to live in. This happens because scientists disagree themselves on almost everything. Recognizing the difference in science as an ideal versus science put in practice makes me not want to agree with your statement.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Utilizing data to continuous refine one's model of the world is the ultimate final authority. Some people call it science, some call it the scientific method, etc.
  - CTmystery 5y ago
    Sure, it's a great method for understanding causal relationships in the world. It's also a method that humans invented, and it's not proven that some future invented method could not provide as much insight into the world as the scientific method. Calling it the ultimate authority and saying that "here literally can not be a higher authority than it by definition" is hard to defend IMO. Science gets its authority from consensus, right now we all agree that science should be granted authority! But it is clearly lacking as an all encompassing tool for understanding: How does the scientific method teach morality? It's not clear that it even can.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    And some other people call it delusion, hubris, flawed epistemology, ironic, etc.
- tinco 5y ago
  That it's the ultimate authority doesn't mean you should always believe it. It's just the best we've got. It's the best thing about science is that it's explicit about the bounds of what we know and don't know. You don't ask a scientist what you should do, you ask a scientist what they think is true, and what the options are and what their estimated outcomes are. It's always you yourself who make the decision. Regardless if there was junk science in the early 1900s (don't know much about it but wouldn't be surprised), it was people who decided to sterilize people. Just as it's people who decide to kill people for Jesus Christ or Allah or whatever excuse they come up with. Even if the science were true, and some subset of Americans is less intelligent or more violent or whatever, it still wouldn't change the fact that now we've decided that eugenics is unethical. We embrace diversity because that's what aligns to our values. Maybe if we're in the middle of famine and war our values will shift again. The authority of science has nothing to do with it.

efdee 5y ago

> I don't believe in reincarnation, but it's not hard at all for me to see how it can be used as a moral tool that helps people think long term. I find this highly offensive. The people must be lied to so they can do the thing that's best for them, because they can't come to this conclusion in a way that doesn't involve lieing.