4 ms·

I think we're getting bogged down in a game of semantics. I do not think it is such a horrendous misuse of the word 'science' when I mean we can use the results

by clicks 13y ago

I think we're getting bogged down in a game of semantics. I do not think it is such a horrendous misuse of the word 'science' when I mean we can use the results of experiments and sometimes loosely (but rationally and in a learned manner) use them as a basis of our actions, morality, and rule of law. Denotationally the word 'science' implies and includes questions of experimental falsifiability, but I see many smart individuals saying 'science tells us climate change is happening' and I don't think they're wrong when they say that -- we may not have found by science that it is true, but we're sure enough that it is true. To reject climate change on such a basis is not so different from people denying the 'theory' of evolution, because "noooo, it's just a theory you see". They are right by this account of technicality... but that doesn't stop us from accepting this theory as being "good enough to go with". That said, I'm heading to sleep for now. If you would like to continue this discussion in e-mail you can let me know your e-mail address and I can reply to your other questions (which I would have answered/re-answered if I were not so sleepy).

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I'm happier to talk on HN. Listen, I'm not saying to reject the studies about climate change, I'm saying that to accept the studies about climate change and let them affect your morals you have to implicitly accept that falsifiable science can't tell us everything we need to know to create our morals. The point is that absolutism insists on yes or no answers to moral questions - that's what absolute means, there is only one answer - but only falsifiable hypotheses can give yes or no answers, and often our morals need to come from sources that are not falsifiable, e.g. climate change studies. That's why I reject scientific moral absolutism; not because falsifiable science is bad - it's extremely important - but because it's not enough.

by clicks 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

I'm happier to talk on HN. Listen, I'm not saying to reject the studies about climate change, I'm saying that to accept the studies about climate change and let them affect your morals you have to implicitly accept that falsifiable science can't tell us everything we need to know to create our morals. The point is that absolutism insists on yes or no answers to moral questions - that's what absolute means, there is only one answer - but only falsifiable hypotheses can give yes or no answers, and often our morals need to come from sources that are not falsifiable, e.g. climate change studies. That's why I reject scientific moral absolutism; not because falsifiable science is bad - it's extremely important - but because it's not enough.