Re: Re: A Challenge To Atheists Part One (Science and the Unimaginable)

The Gaedean Method:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/149993398400709/#!/groups/149993398400709/doc/...

The explanatory scientific method (which I plan on revising):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjiXqscxmIo

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• explanation
• explanatory
• scientific
• method
• spawktalk
• science
• rational
• rationality
• conceivable
• imaginable
• existence
• exist
• hypothesis
• theory
• fact
• religion
• irrational
• god
• scientist
• authority
• morality
• ethics

[L1ber8ted]

RE: morality & ethics; what did you think of Stefan's book, UPB?

[junior00bacon00chee]

@L1ber8ted

i read it quite a while ago and i can't say i remember specifically what his arguments are. should i go back and read it again?

[MaikUniversum]

zero dislikes??? Progress :D

[junior00bacon00chee]

@MaikUniversum

haha well she's got some now, but it's an improvement!

[L1ber8ted]

@L1ber8ted Briefly, he defines ethics as: universally preferable behaviour (hence, UPB). He sees it as a 'proof' and so on. He's a firm logical empiricist. He uses what I prefer to label 'mutually reciprocal behaviour' as a foundation to examine what we possibly mean by ethics and moral rules. (I'm not saying I have better terminology or anything, I just don't like all this 'proof', 'universal' or 'absolute' jargon.)

[L1ber8ted]

@junior00bacon00chee Basically, I'm wondering if moral language is even rational at all (like truth). Or whether there's anything there to be explained, e.g. morality as a tool for domination. As a side note, UPB is superb IMO as a personal 'inoculation tool' to defend against those who'll try using ethics to bully or manipulate. E.g. I'd take their supposed 'principle' & apply it to them, then to all people (Stef calls this 'universalising'), and see if their code breaks, so to speak.

[L1ber8ted]

@junior00bacon00chee Entirely at your discretion of course. Yet, since changing my thinking, esp relating to the importance of definitions, illustration, the scientific method, and all this 'absolute truth' stuff, I've been rethinking ethics. (Non-violence is just so central to my personal values.) UPB was the closest thing I ever found that defines/explains what the hell we're talking about re: is, ought, should, must, rights, good/evil, etc. Yet I think it leaves some enormous holes too.

[L1ber8ted]

@L1ber8ted In other words, it follows from definitions, and ONLY from definitions. Of course, anyone is free to use any definition (consistent or not!) for whatever they like, but inevitably inconsistent definitions leave larger and larger loopholes.

[L1ber8ted]

@evnwood I think JBC's point, one among many, is that whether you or anyone or anything exists or not is NOT dependent upon, nor related to, human proof or knowledge. Certainly not in science anyway, which is (or should be) as objective as possible. So, what we CAN do is first define exist unambiguously (this is very hard, and until recently was never accomplished) and thus then we can finally say, without doubt, whether a thing exists or not.

[EpicYarnEM]

The only think I know is I AM EXPERIENCING SENSATIONS.

[EpicYarnEM]

The only thing I know for sure, that it wouldn't even make sense to speak of denying, is that I AM EXPERIENCING SENSATIONS.

[evnwood]

The only thing I truly know is 100% fact ,is that " I EXIST",although I can not prove it.