4 ms·
It's not a subtle error, and it's not peripheral to the argument either. The entire middle third of the comment is the standard engineer's fallacy that because
by ArbitraryLimits 14y ago
It's not a subtle error, and it's not peripheral to the argument either.
The entire middle third of the comment is the standard engineer's fallacy that because the laws of physics are absolute and not relative, people's values should be also, and all conflict could be avoided if people were just rational. The main evidence offered is this aside about "science" "proving" the non-existence of god, so its fallaciousness is highly relevant. (There's also the fun of pointing out a fallacious and therefore irrational arugment in support of being rational, I'll admit it.)
Every college student in a technical major who has to take a humanities class for general ed goes through this phase, it's understandable. But it's just as important to grow up and leave it. Values are not rational, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them.
- Wintamute 14y agoNowhere in the "entire middle third of the comment" does he mention, or allude to, any of the following: - That people's values are absolute, or in anyway similar to the laws of physics. - The existence, or non-existence of god, proving it, or otherwise. - That values are irrational. - That you get to ignore people's values. You're putting words into his mouth. I think he's got quite interesting things to say about moral relativism, and his view point is hardly as naive as you think it is, but you're not hearing it.