tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post1945504706541023189..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of TSW Part 24g The Mind-Brain Muddle: EthicsGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-48677412957467706452014-12-24T10:29:37.026-08:002014-12-24T10:29:37.026-08:00GB: "...As scientists, we can attempt to prov...GB: <i>"...As scientists, we can attempt to provide the data for both, but we cannot make such decisions in our capacity as scientists. Those decisions are for each individual and each group to make in their capacities as citizens."</i><br /> <br />If there is data (not a lot) and there is logic (however muddled), valid scientific conclusions can be drawn (even if they're probabilistic) about "what works" in social relationships. For example, racism doesn't work to the benefit of either the victim or the perpetrator. Science can point that out. Eugenics doesn't work as science, but the belief that it did led to World War II.<br /><br />GB: <i>"... altruism is a subjective term and not a scientific one."</i><br /> <br />It's only subjective if it's defined as an emotional commitment, without evidence or logic.<br /> <br />If altruism is defined as acting purely for the benefit of others, rather than self, it can be scientifically demonstrated by evidence and logic to be a "guideline" for social destruction, not a benefit. Likewise, if selfishness is defined as acting purely for the benefit of self, without regard for others, the scientific result must be the destruction of civil society, which cannot be construed as a "good" in any legitimate system of ethics.<br /> <br />Granted, the "state of the art" in social sciences is meager, but we have the entire history of mankind as evidence and that data can be analyzed to determine what worked and what didn't work. If that doesn't produce a scientifically valid "guideline to social conduct", I don't know what can.<br /> <br />GB: <i>"... Your emphasis on dissimilarities is somewhat valid, but it is not evidence for the traditional “soul” that the priests claim or the “free will” that you claim to have."</i><br /> <br />There is no correlation whatever between the mystically endowed "soul" and my concept of a human will acting independent of "nature or nurture" influences. Sapiens are different than sentients, with a capacity for making scientifically valid determinations about valid and beneficial ethical principles.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com