5 ms·

people have tried this with various ideologies (Christianity, Islam, communism, Nazism, etc). I am not aware of a case where structuring a whole society around

people have tried this with various ideologies (Christianity, Islam, communism, Nazism, etc). I am not aware of a case where structuring a whole society around a single belief system or value system has worked out well. Maybe diversity is actually a good thing.

JetAlone 4y ago
I think you're quite right but I am curious, is there a reason communism is the only ideology you didn't capitalize in your list?
- NateEag 4y ago
  I'm honestly not sure why I didn't. I guess subconscious habit.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    Fair enough. I know that some journalists on the left have openly made a conscious point of capitalizing the "black" in "black people" but not the "white" in "white people" because they just know that will do an amazing job at improving race relations. So I was wondering if this was something similar. Edits: little spelling and punctuation here and there.
openfuture 4y ago
Diversity is a wonderful thing. Science is based on ethical persuasion, where you make it clear why you believe something. The things you listed are not of that nature, they try to persuade you by appealing to authority or employing coercion of some sort.
- JetAlone 4y ago
  What would you say the ethical persuasion of science is based upon?
  - openfuture 4y ago
    Reality
    - JetAlone 4y ago
      How does reality show us what is ethical persuasion, or that ethical persuasion is objectively the correct approach? You need to convince me this chain of questioning won't lead to either: -Pointing to a historical line of moral tradition and figures that hold a feeling of authoritativeness to us -"Reality is reality" and an implicit appeal to yourself and your aura of "rationalistic candor" as the authority Either way, I predict you'll ad-hom me for daring to ask the question... Because the most thoughtful option would be conceding that there's basically not a substantive enough basis for the virtue of ethical persuasion that makes it inherently part of science. And then, science isn't especially distinct in this way from any moral tradition that values ethical persuasion, and then your tribe loses some of its unique sense of popular appeal, and then society won't be as easily coerced into the shape you want it to be. And you understandably wouldn't want that. You said in a cousin comment: "It [science] is no more (or less) a religion than what we have now." And I think this applies here also and flattens out the appeal to ethical persuasion into less of a rigid, dogmatic declaration of "reality". It's rather that you want to be ethically persuasive in your reporting and discourse of what we try to agree upon as scientific evidence, which I think is good of you as a matter of faith and instinct, but I do not accept as self-evidently inherent to the epistemological basis of science itself nor necessarily to reality if we try to approach this rationalistically and divorce ourselves from appeals to authority. The only other direction I can see for you is to try to bum-rush past the Peripatetic Axiom, and say that something about "reality" is somehow bypassing the fallibility of our sense-data and instinctual human appeals to authority - and therefore absolutely rock-solid, utterly unmistakable to anyone sincere... And that would be like what we call "Divine Revelation" in the metaphysics business. Anything like it is a strictly religious dogma - anyone who questions that epistemology as some branches of philosophy do, becomes a heretic, someone who needs to just embrace the model and "get with the program" already.
      - openfuture 4y ago
epgui 4y ago
Science is not a belief system in the same way that religions and political ideologies are belief systems. Science reigns supreme in epistemology.
- NateEag 4y ago
  The scientific method is a powerful tool for constructing what might be called "consensus reality". Given its total inability to prove positive statements (no scientific "law" is ever proven correct, only "not observed to be wrong so far"), and thus its general irrelevance to mathematics, I would recommend some caution about declaring it the ultimate epistemological authority.
  - epgui 4y ago
    > Given its total inability to prove positive statements This is recognized in the natural sciences, but not in the pure sciences. Considering the context, I thought it was clear that I was not talking about pure sciences, and that I was rather referring to the natural or social sciences. There is no source of knowledge, method or tool that surpasses science in epistemological authority. That does not mean it gets us to a total and absolute truth, it just means it's the least-bad way possible of knowing things.
    - NateEag 4y ago
      > There is no source of knowledge, method or tool that surpasses science in epistemological authority. That does not mean it gets us to a total and absolute truth, it just means it's the least-bad way possible of knowing things. What do you base this statement on? How do you know science is the strongest possible way of knowing? What do you mean by "science"? I may be misunderstanding you due to a divergence in our understandings of the word.
      - epgui 4y ago
        I’m not using any fancy or special definition, I use the word “science” much like it is used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

JetAlone 4y ago

I think you're quite right but I am curious, is there a reason communism is the only ideology you didn't capitalize in your list?

NateEag 4y ago
I'm honestly not sure why I didn't. I guess subconscious habit.
- JetAlone 4y ago
  Fair enough. I know that some journalists on the left have openly made a conscious point of capitalizing the "black" in "black people" but not the "white" in "white people" because they just know that will do an amazing job at improving race relations. So I was wondering if this was something similar. Edits: little spelling and punctuation here and there.

openfuture 4y ago

Diversity is a wonderful thing. Science is based on ethical persuasion, where you make it clear why you believe something. The things you listed are not of that nature, they try to persuade you by appealing to authority or employing coercion of some sort.

JetAlone 4y ago
What would you say the ethical persuasion of science is based upon?
- openfuture 4y ago
  Reality
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    How does reality show us what is ethical persuasion, or that ethical persuasion is objectively the correct approach? You need to convince me this chain of questioning won't lead to either: -Pointing to a historical line of moral tradition and figures that hold a feeling of authoritativeness to us -"Reality is reality" and an implicit appeal to yourself and your aura of "rationalistic candor" as the authority Either way, I predict you'll ad-hom me for daring to ask the question... Because the most thoughtful option would be conceding that there's basically not a substantive enough basis for the virtue of ethical persuasion that makes it inherently part of science. And then, science isn't especially distinct in this way from any moral tradition that values ethical persuasion, and then your tribe loses some of its unique sense of popular appeal, and then society won't be as easily coerced into the shape you want it to be. And you understandably wouldn't want that. You said in a cousin comment: "It [science] is no more (or less) a religion than what we have now." And I think this applies here also and flattens out the appeal to ethical persuasion into less of a rigid, dogmatic declaration of "reality". It's rather that you want to be ethically persuasive in your reporting and discourse of what we try to agree upon as scientific evidence, which I think is good of you as a matter of faith and instinct, but I do not accept as self-evidently inherent to the epistemological basis of science itself nor necessarily to reality if we try to approach this rationalistically and divorce ourselves from appeals to authority. The only other direction I can see for you is to try to bum-rush past the Peripatetic Axiom, and say that something about "reality" is somehow bypassing the fallibility of our sense-data and instinctual human appeals to authority - and therefore absolutely rock-solid, utterly unmistakable to anyone sincere... And that would be like what we call "Divine Revelation" in the metaphysics business. Anything like it is a strictly religious dogma - anyone who questions that epistemology as some branches of philosophy do, becomes a heretic, someone who needs to just embrace the model and "get with the program" already.
    - openfuture 4y ago

epgui 4y ago

Science is not a belief system in the same way that religions and political ideologies are belief systems. Science reigns supreme in epistemology.

NateEag 4y ago
The scientific method is a powerful tool for constructing what might be called "consensus reality". Given its total inability to prove positive statements (no scientific "law" is ever proven correct, only "not observed to be wrong so far"), and thus its general irrelevance to mathematics, I would recommend some caution about declaring it the ultimate epistemological authority.
- epgui 4y ago
  > Given its total inability to prove positive statements This is recognized in the natural sciences, but not in the pure sciences. Considering the context, I thought it was clear that I was not talking about pure sciences, and that I was rather referring to the natural or social sciences. There is no source of knowledge, method or tool that surpasses science in epistemological authority. That does not mean it gets us to a total and absolute truth, it just means it's the least-bad way possible of knowing things.
  - NateEag 4y ago
    > There is no source of knowledge, method or tool that surpasses science in epistemological authority. That does not mean it gets us to a total and absolute truth, it just means it's the least-bad way possible of knowing things. What do you base this statement on? How do you know science is the strongest possible way of knowing? What do you mean by "science"? I may be misunderstanding you due to a divergence in our understandings of the word.
    - epgui 4y ago
      I’m not using any fancy or special definition, I use the word “science” much like it is used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science