_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Appeals to Science – This is when we believe a thing to be true because it has been tested and found to be true.

---

Allstarslacker posted:

---

But why bother to know anything?

Is the pursuit of knowledge by a creature destined for death, and a species destined for extinction logical?

Why do we bother?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So you believe that people's emotions are important?

That is fine but how do you know they are important.

Science and knowledge of outcomes is critical to making and moral choice but the moral imperitive is really the same regardless. I would say moral choices are a mix of intent and knowledge.

How do you know your intent is right?

---

NuEM posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So you believe that people's emotions are important?

That is fine but how do you know they are important.

Science and knowledge of outcomes is critical to making and moral choice but the moral imperitive is really the same regardless. I would say moral choices are a mix of intent and knowledge.

How do you know your intent is right?

---

It's an axiomatic approach. Emotions seem to be important. One might even go so far and say they only exist to help us survive in the first place. So as a starting point it's not too bad I think. Then you build up from there.

Do you have an alternative to that?

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Science is simply a way of knowing things, just like any other way you may come to know something. How you choose to know something about yourself greatly influences how valid what you know is. If you choose to "wing it" using intuition you can very easily be wrong. If you choose to experiment a little and test what you know...

---

Ashmaele posted:

---

Quality stuff Enkie.

But I have to ask, were you in prison between October 2009 and December 2011?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

How does one obtain moral knowledge?

Is there such a thing?

---

Modeeb posted:

---

Ontology is a subset of Metaphysics. Before you take a position, it is important to ask yourself what metaphysical worldview you will adopt. There are basically five broad metaphysical categories:

1. Immanent Realism
2. Transcendental Realism
3. Nominalism
4. Meinongianism
5. Escapes me at the present ( my notes have been lost in some moves)* Note if anyone can help me please do.

I have a lot of work to do this morning. However, I will build on this to demonstrate, if you take a different metaphysical position, then it will affect the variables outlined in any epistemology or ontology.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

How does one obtain moral knowledge?

Is there such a thing?

---

Of course. How you came to have your moral beliefs was learned using one of the four epistemologies. The question then becomes how valid is that belief in light of how you learned it. Since the first three ways are very flawed if you used them to gain your belief it could also be very flawed. Seriously, any information gained using the first three appeals is about as trustworthy as an op ed piece in the newspaper. You would be equally right/wrong in agreeing or disagreeing with any knowledge being passed to you that way.

Right now there is a big push in social psychology to understand right and wrong behavior based on information processing. Especially intriguing is the work being done on egalitarian actions that don't directly help and in some cases harm the person performing the action. Basically, these people are overcoming their base instincts of preservation for the greater good and it's somewhat surprising how many people have already evolved egalitarian instincts.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So you think you can determine right and wrong through science?

Knowing how people make decisions and knowing the outcome of a choice is not moral knowledge.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The OP is about approach and judging various approaches using logic. The idea of morality has always been a hard mix of logic and belief (or what you call emotion). There are those who thinks science can be used to answer moral questions without using those faulty approaches to obtaining knowledge. ie emotion, belief, etc.

Whether or not there is a higher power or not we as human beings have to make these moral choices. We have no choice but to attempt to define good and bad.

---

Modeeb posted:

---

Enlighten us Cherrim. You know a specialized vocabulary is necessary to speak about some of these subjects.

Enkidu and I disagree about the effect of metaphysical models (underpinnings of Reality) on belief systems. I'm more closely associated with Transcendental realism. I believe Absolute truth (Ideal Truth) exists in Platonic heaven. I cannot explain how I come to know something which exists outside of time and space (The Ideal). Just because I cannot explain this does not make it false. *

At all times, epistemology (the theory of knowledge) and ontology (the study of brute existence) are subsets of Metaphysics. My argument is your metaphysical orientation changes your theories of knowledge and existence.

* of course I'm going to qualify all of my statements with : "But that is not it." I do this because I cannot explain what I do not know.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

So you think you can determine right and wrong through science?

Knowing how people make decisions and knowing the outcome of a choice is not moral knowledge.

---

Of course, why wouldn't you be able to? What is considered moral is completely subjective and testable for any given population. In fact we test what is moral on a daily basis as each culture interacts with other cultures with different moral values.

Think about how you came to have your concept of what's moral. Where did you get the information you used to make your decision?

---

NuEM posted:

---

You just define what you want to optimize, and then do the right decisions. Happiness in the broader sense seems like a great choice to me. Then all you do need is perfect knowledge and then you can always make the optimal decision.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

As I keep saying, of course right and wrong can be determined by science, it happens all the time.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

NuEM posted:

---

You just define what you want to optimize, and then do the right decisions. Happiness in the broader sense seems like a great choice to me. Then all you do need is perfect knowledge and then you can always make the optimal decision.

---

Defining what to optimize is another way of deciding what is right and wrong and the primary point of discussion.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

If you don't want to answer the question then don't.

The context is clearly with regard to moral questions of right and wrong.

---

NuEM posted:

---

No, that comes built in.

---

Modeeb posted:

---

First, I need to correct myself. The metaphyical category is Transcendental Idealism and not Transcendental Realism. In your world, numbers are mind-dependent in my world numbers are mind independent. The number three doesnt cease to exist if I am no longer around. It existed before me and after me. It is a universal. Universals are abstract objects. Abstract objects exist outside of space and time. They are mind independent.

I'm a mystic of sorts. This is my fundamental approach to Reality. This is why intuition in my worldview does different work for me than in your world. Thus, I have used a concrete example how a different metaphysical position affects your epistemology.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

I most certainly did answer the question, what you fail at is reading. Moral issues are no different than any other topic. Read the OP on slavery and women's rights, which are clearly both moral issues that older epistemologies got wrong. As science has clearly demonstrated, women are just as capable at making decisions as men and there is absolutely no reason to subjugate anyone because of their skin color.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Modeeb posted:

---

First, I need to correct myself. The metaphyical category is Transcendental Idealism and not Transcendental Realism. In your world, numbers are mind-dependent in my world numbers are mind independent. The number three doesnt cease to exist if I am no longer around. It existed before me and after me. It is a universal. Universals are abstract objects. Abstract objects exist outside of space and time. They are mind independent.

I'm a mystic of sorts. This is my fundamental approach to Reality. This is why intuition in my worldview does different work for me than in your world. Thus, I have used a concrete example how a different metaphysical position affects your epistemology.

---

I'd be open to discussing another way (whatever you might be thinking about) of knowing things, but I'm going to be pretty sure it will fall into one of the existing categories. People a lot smarter than us have debating them a very long time.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Prove it is good or bad that people are enslaved using science.

The most you can do is assume a desired outcome of good or bad and then prove that no slavery achieves that outcome. You can't prove that we should achieve that outcome.

Ergo science does not and can not answer moral questions, but it can inform them.

Or why should I care?

Prove I should care about your moral imperatives.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

All morals are assumed outcomes of good and bad, whatever made you think they were not?

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

And once again, of course. Whatever measure you use to decide a good/bad/right/wrong outcome, science will give you the most valid answer out of the appeals to knowledge.

This isn't that hard tounderstand, is it?

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

As I keep saying, of course right and wrong can be determined by science, it happens all the time.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

And once again, of course. Whatever measure you use to decide a good/bad/right/wrong outcome, science will give you the most valid answer out of the appeals to knowledge.

This isn't that hard tounderstand, is it?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

NuEM posted:

---

No, that comes built in.

---

Yes our moral compass come built in.

Intuition is on his list btw.

---

video posted:

---

WE EXIST IN DIFFERENT EPISTEMOLOGICAL PARADIGMS, FUCKPANTS?

---

NuEM posted:

---

Feeling bad is bad. Feeling good is, well... good. It's kind of the definition.

---

cherrim posted:

---

I don't contend that delineating "ways of knowing" is arcane. I suppose most of my earlier critique applies to statements like "your metaphysical orientation changes your theories of knowledge and existence."

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

If you don't want to answer the question then don't.

The context is clearly with regard to moral questions of right and wrong.

---

I most certainly did answer the question, what you fail at is reading. Moral issues are no different than any other topic. Read the OP on slavery and women's rights, which are clearly both moral issues that older epistemologies got wrong. As science has clearly demonstrated, women are just as capable at making decisions as men and there is absolutely no reason to subjugate anyone because of their skin color.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

NuEM posted:

---

Feeling bad is bad. Feeling good is, well... good. It's kind of the definition.

---

So feelings determine morality...

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

They clearly weren't refuted, but since you think so, I'm going to let you figure this out yourself. Again, all you have to do is state your position on evolution and how you got it.

These are questions you should have the ability to answer, since they are your beliefs.

---

Modeeb posted:

---

cherrim posted:

---

I don't contend that delineating "ways of knowing" is arcane. I suppose most of my earlier critique applies to statements like "your metaphysical orientation changes your theories of knowledge and existence."

---

See my concrete example above and restated differently below, Cherrim.

Metaphysical position, Transcendental Idealism, (i.e.Reality is mind independent), thus the rock exists independent of my mind and the number three exists independent of my mind. A Conceptual metaphysical position is completely mind dependent. The ontology is different. Therfore, your ontology is dependent on your metaphysical position. If i am a Realist I am committed down a certain road. If I am an anti-Realist I am committed down another road. Now do you understand? I cant be any simpler or clearer.

---

Snarf_Igraine posted:

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

They clearly weren't refuted, but since you think so, I'm going to let you figure this out yourself. Again, all you have to do is state your position on evolution and how you got it.

These are questions you should have the ability to answer, since they are your beliefs.

---

You never demonstrated that slavery is morally wrong or right through scientific observation. What scientific observation that is testable, and repeatable shows that that slavery is wrong or right. Or for that matter why younger women are more attractive than older women, skinnier women are more attractive fatter women, impressionist art is better than abstract art etc.

As for your question. There are more ways to get knowledge your poor attempt to describe epistemology. The only rational answer you leave to give is "appeal to science". However, your broad description of "science" is part of a category called Empiricism. You then left out idealism, rationalism, and constructivism.

---

Scarne posted:

---

It all depends on how you are defining right and wrong.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

It all depends on how you are defining right and wrong.

---

Defining what is right and wrong is the moral question.

---

Scarne posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

It all depends on how you are defining right and wrong.

---

Defining what is right and wrong is the moral question.

---

That isn't what I meant. The specifics of what actions are right and wrong isn't important.

The important bit is what is means for something to be right and wrong. A simplistic definition could be something that is right is something that increases a group's chance of survival, but something that is wrong is something that decreases a group's chance of survival. A lot of morals do boil down to that even if it does require human level abstract thinking to resolve some moral issues down to such definitions.

But you can't have science be proving something as right or wrong if you don't nail down those definitions first. Otherwise you get people arguing back and forth over any proof when they are really arguing over what right and wrong mean.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Pick any moral argument you want and it still comes down to the same thing. You decide the morality of the issue based on information. Where do you get this information? It's not like you were born thinking "slavery is moral."

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

People are born with the capacity to think of things in certain ways. Once again you have failed to address the question.

---

Ptilk posted:

---

The real question isn't whether science can answer a moral question, it's whether religion can. So far, based upon empirical historical evidence....the answer is no.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

It means people are born with the capacity to address moral questions of good and bad.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question and demonstrate your position. So far you have made claims that yes science can prove good and bad and science can answer moral questions. Your only attempt to answer these rather fundamental issues with regard to the topic you brought up is a demonstration that you are not even willing to address the issue of moral knowledge.

How does one obtain moral knowledge?

Is there such a thing?

---

Snarf_Igraine posted:

---

Something he clearly doesn't understand since most of it supports what myself and others in this thread have been saying all along.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

No people cannot address moral questions at birth, that's why we don't try juveniles as adults. You learn what is moral, it's stupid beyond belief that you even think that people don't learn their morality. Why do you think people have such wide ranging views on morality?

Some people...

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Not sure you can learn from silence, pretty sure you have to be trying to communicate information in someway.

Odd you should pick science deciding the morality of death yuki, since it is used in thousands of ways to decide who lives and who dies everyday. Everything from vehicle safety laws, food contamination levels, to air and water quality and everything in between use science to set the acceptable level of death. In fact almost all of our codified morality in the US is based on science and not the bible.

Thank god for secularism!

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

You're just being willfully stupid now, Onin. You learned your morality, just as I learned mine, just as everyone else in the world learned theirs.

To think it happens any other way is looney.

---

Snarf_Igraine posted:

---

SiO is correct that we are born with innate empathy, this is probably why it is an argument made by philosophers for a long time that moral knlowledge is a priori, and outside of science.

---

Scarne posted:

---

Snarf_Igraine posted:

---

SiO is correct that we are born with innate empathy, this is probably why it is an argument made by philosophers for a long time that moral knlowledge is a priori, and outside of science.

---

We are born with empathy because it is programmed into our genes. It is part of science, even if we don't know the full mechanisms yet.

---

Modeeb posted:

---

Silence is letting go of thinking. There is an infinite amount to be learned from silence.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Actually nobody has stated why science can't decide right from wrong, which would be really amusing, since science dictates thousands of moral choices everyday. I hate to break it to you, but we use scientific facts to decide almost all important morality questions because the other appeals to knowledge are so arbitrary. This is exactly what Hume was addressing in snarf's post. There are no absolute morals, only man-made ones. Absolute morals would allow reductio ad absurdum events which Hume clearly states is crazy. Hume also feels the same way about other subjective decisions that people try and tie to platonic absolutes, hence Modeeb's cite of Hume's decree of "consign it to the flames" for art.

The only way to evalute a person's position on subjective issues is to look at where they get their information. If they are using weaker means to get information their position is weaker. Which makes it really simple for reflexive evaluation. Why do you believe what you do and where did you get your information that made you think that way? Using this can identify many of the fallacies that hold you back and allow you the breathing room to move forward and learn something better.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

For morality to make sense you need some fundamental truths to compare acts with, but you gain those fundamental truths in the same way Enkidu pointed out in the first post. I think both of you know you are actually saying different things, and you are both incredibly annoying. Grats.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Modeeb posted:

---

Silence is letting go of thinking. There is an infinite amount to be learned from silence.

---

I think you're going for the value of meditation and contemplation, which would fall under appeals to intuition. The value of any knowledge created here would directly relate to the thing being contemplated and how you came to know it. The tricky thing about intuition is we so want it to be right, because it's us making the call, but it's a sneaky thing. I've launched many thought experiments in silence and some worked out great in practice and others crashed after a cursory reading of the literature. There's nothing wrong with enjoying those still quiet moments in our lives, just check yourself for mistakes.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

I answered this like five pages ago, you just chose to not allow it.

I'll do you one better, you pick the moral question and I'll walk you through it.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

I have addressed it onin, you just choose to not allow it.

So choose a moral issue you will allow and I'll show you how it works.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Ethicists use a concept called 'happiness' to express the rightness or wrongness of any moral act.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

This where you keep avoiding the inevitable and obvious central point, knowledge informs everything, even moral decisions.

So what is important is to know where you get your knowledge. Is it good reliable sources, or some guy saying he talks to god.

It really is that simple.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Odd you should pick science deciding the morality of death yuki, since it is used in thousands of ways to decide who lives and who dies everyday. Everything from vehicle safety laws, food contamination levels, to air and water quality and everything in between use science to set the acceptable level of death. In fact almost all of our codified morality in the US is based on science and not the bible.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Science can't tell us which choice to make. That depends on our individual unverifiable assumption about the value of human life.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Again, what else would you use but knowledge to assign a value to any moral evaluation? You don't know right from wrong until somebody gives you some idea something might be right or wrong. That idea you are given is information, so what information are you going to trust?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It could come from anywhere. It isn't susceptible to proof so there is no real way to definitely say anyone's valuation is any better or worse than anyone else's.

If I say the value of a human life is 3 million and you say it's 300,000 how is science going to tell us whose valuation is better? Science can tell us what the average person's valuation is but that's obviously circular and doesn't tell us whether that average is correct or not.

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

If we set that price too high, everyone else suffers. If we set that price too low, too many people die. You'd need science to determine what the acceptable rate should be, and in fact, that's what we do. As far as you personally disagreeing with whatever the set number is, that is again back to why you think that way and how you came to know it (back to where your information comes from).

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

The whole idea that you are born knowing right from wrong is silly. If this was the case we'd all have the same morality. This is the same silliness that Hume was talking about when he was showing how it's impossible to have absolute morality, it's all made up as we go along. How could someone be against the death penalty and someone else be for it if they were born knowning right from wrong. Obviously, they didn't, or are you saying that people knowingly want to be wrong?

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

This thread is both insufferable and like a car wreck. I can't turn away because at the core of the discussion is enkidu saying something that is true, in a way that pisses off people who should know better.

I am a little shocked that Onin and yuki are still arguing it though. And also sad that I was wrong about SoO getting it and just not realizing the starting points were different.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

This thread is both insufferable and like a car wreck. I can't turn away because at the core of the discussion is enkidu saying something that is true, in a way that pisses off people who should know better.

I am a little shocked that Onin and yuki are still arguing it though. And also sad that I was wrong about SoO getting it and just not realizing the starting points were different.

---

Oh please, everything Enk has actually had the balls to comment on is a given. ie science informs moral decisions.

What he is too chicken shit to comment on is moral knowledge or the assumption of what is right and wrong and where this actually comes from.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

It seems super relevant to his take home of "be aware of how you make your decisions."

Enkidu is trying to claim science is all we need. That's obviously nonsense because you couldn't make any choices at all if you only relied on science because you'd have no idea what a good outcome is in the first place.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

but it comes from one of the places he already talked about. Denying that seems kind of silly. I respect the idea that some very few ideals about right and wrong may be instinctual. but given we can learn past that I'm not even sure how relevant that is.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

but how we decide what the imperative is is learned. And that's all enkidork is saying. You want to get mired in the hows and whats of specific decisions so you can poke holes in the stimulus or the result of the decision, but making the decision is going to be a requirement no matter what. And the possibilities for how one makes that decision is the same as how one makes any decision.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I suppose I am following better because as an adult I reevaluated my entire moral compass.

Let's say you are trying to decide if generally killing another person for your own gain is bad. You can just decide that the bible is a good source of moral direction and believe that. or you can think about how killing someone for your own gain would make you feel. What would be the impact on them, and what would be the impact on others and then try to define a solution from that. but ultimately good feelings are the only things you have to go on. Either good feelings or some substitute for them that you have decided are more important. But whatever you decide has been learned, and then how you apply that to moral decisions is learned as well.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

but can't good feelings be the basis of a scientific evaluation? Can't deciding good feelings ARE in fact a good baseline use good scientific evaluation?

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

but can't good feelings be the basis of a scientific evaluation? Can't deciding good feelings ARE in fact a good baseline use good scientific evaluation?

You honestly believe it can't? That we are just arbitrarily choosing something and have no hope of applying any level of reason to that judgement?

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I disagree with you. If I had to explain my ethics to someone I would absolutely tell them that the happiness I bring to other is my primary consideration in an informed ethical decision. And if you asked me how I came up with that I would tell you that I considered many different alternatives and came up with that as the truest form of righteousness. You can absolutely test other ideas either in practice or in a thought exercise, and by testing other ideas and coming up with a conclusion I'd think you are using science to come up with that conclusion.

Even if your baseline is something arbitrary and the solution is something arbitrary you can still test the solution against other arbitrary solutions. Sometimes you only have three choices and none of them are perfect but you can still consider them. Consider all the fallout then make a decision, and that still seems like a scientific evaluation to me.

How else would you define that process?

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I disagree with you. If I had to explain my ethics to someone I would absolutely tell them that the happiness I bring to other is my primary consideration in an informed ethical decision. And if you asked me how I came up with that I would tell you that I considered many different alternatives and came up with that as the truest form of righteousness. You can absolutely test other ideas either in practice or in a thought exercise, and by testing other ideas and coming up with a conclusion I'd think you are using science to come up with that conclusion.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

whatever morality is, and however you want to define it, you have to make that decision somehow. When you make that decision you can use good rational decision making to do it, and if you consider multiple alternatives and use any kind of rational basis for evaluating it, I think you can reasonably call that science. And I honestly have no idea why you two think you can't.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I disagree with you. If I had to explain my ethics to someone I would absolutely tell them that the happiness I bring to other is my primary consideration in an informed ethical decision. And if you asked me how I came up with that I would tell you that I considered many different alternatives and came up with that as the truest form of righteousness. You can absolutely test other ideas either in practice or in a thought exercise, and by testing other ideas and coming up with a conclusion I'd think you are using science to come up with that conclusion.

---

That's not the sort of science Enkidu is talking about because it isn't objectively verifiable or reproducible by anyone else.

Thinking things through is not the same as science. Science is about subjecting hypotheses to objectively verifiable testing.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

If good is a universal truth we are guessing at it, and those guesses can be tested against other potential guesses using whatever baseline we want. If good is just good to you and relative then the potentials for what is good can still be tested and evaluated even more easily.

Either morality means nothing or what it does mean can be tested.

Maybe this issue is much more complex than it seems, and I am not getting it, but you guys seem really confused over nothing to me. whatever morality is, and however you want to define it, you have to make that decision somehow. When you make that decision you can use good rational decision making to do it, and if you consider multiple alternatives and use any kind of rational basis for evaluating it, I think you can reasonably call that science. And I honestly have no idea why you two think you can't.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I know calling you a poopyhead would make you sad, but I could still do it and see.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

If good is a universal truth we are guessing at it, and those guesses can be tested against other potential guesses using whatever baseline we want. If good is just good to you and relative then the potentials for what is good can still be tested and evaluated even more easily.

Either morality means nothing or what it does mean can be tested.

Maybe this issue is much more complex than it seems, and I am not getting it, but you guys seem really confused over nothing to me. whatever morality is, and however you want to define it, you have to make that decision somehow. When you make that decision you can use good rational decision making to do it, and if you consider multiple alternatives and use any kind of rational basis for evaluating it, I think you can reasonably call that science. And I honestly have no idea why you two think you can't.

---

It is very simple and straight forward. You can't prove right and wrong.

The only way to test it is to see how well it lives up to other things that you can't prove are right or wrong.

Right and wrong can be taught and conditioned but ultimately right and wrong is an extension of our biological imperatives that are hard coded and then evolved through society.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I know calling you a poopyhead would make you sad, but I could still do it and see.

---

Yeah, but no matter what happened that wouldn't tell you anything about whether making people sad is a bad thing to do or not.

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

evolved through society ruins your point doesn't it? We have ideals. but you can't prove those ideals weren't learned and tested. Otherwise why would it have been a good thing to kill outsiders when you lived next door to the gauls but a bad thing when you lived next door to the spaniards?

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

GrilledCheez posted:

---

I know calling you a poopyhead would make you sad, but I could still do it and see.

---

Yeah, but no matter what happened that wouldn't tell you anything about whether making people sad is a bad thing to do or not.

---

maybe nothing will tell you that ever. Does that mean you can't use science to see?

---

_Enkidu_ posted:

---

Again, you are missing the point. How we think about anything doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is always informed by our knowledge. How we get that knowledge deterines how trustworthy the information is. If you depend on intuition your information will be less trustworthy than if you explored the issue. You guys keep coming back to intuition as your default position and it's unreliable. So why keep coming back to it?

It's insane.

---