Are you moronic? Science relies very heavily on empiricism. Empiricism cannot be proven empirically, and to use it as a model requires certain axioms, like observational coherence. Making those assumptions and acting on them is philosophy. You literally cannot have science without it.
Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive you fricking moron. They are closely intertwined and always have been.
>has natural philosophy replaced philosophy
Good one op
With science I can make testable predictions about the real world. That is impossible with philosophy. Philosophy is just moronic speculations that can't be proved one way or the other.
OP, you’re moronic. Science is born out of a specific philosophic tradition and relies on philosophy. It has certain philosophical principles it relies on that have inherent flaws, but we accept those flaws given the benefit that viewing the world through that lens produces.
I’m not an expert, but I took a course called the Philosophy of Science. Iirc pic related was the textbook. Find something like this and read it. Until then you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What exactly does philosophy add to the fact that "looking" is a valid method of gaining knowledge? Science works irregardless of whether some armchair pseuds fail to understand it.
I mean, radical skeptics can be annoying, but that has literally always been a fringe view in philosophy that almost no one accepts. So, all this shows is that the creator of this meme knows nuthin about philosophy.
We can easily test which ethical system causes the most amount of pain/harm
2 months ago
Anonymous
But that's only a measure of success or failure if you accept utilitarianism's premises and judge deontological ones inferior. What experiment did you do to make that determination in the first place?
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's just common sense that pain is bad. This is what I mean about science replacing philosophy, philosopher can't even accept that pain is bad.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It's just common sense that pain is bad
That doesn't sound very scientific at all, or even empirical. That sounds like rationalism. What experiment did you do to determine the place of rationalism in your evaluation?
>This is what I mean about science replacing philosophy, philosopher can't even accept that pain is bad.
Are you stupid? I didn't say that I don't accept pain is bad. I'm saying that I'm not sure that edonistic utilitarian premises (pain is bad, pleasure is good) are necessarily triumphant over deontological ethics.
If it would cause a net happiness gain over the whole world to kill you, OP, does that mean we should line you up against the wall and shoot you? Why don't we conduct an experiment to find out? Or do you wonder if maybe deontological rules like "Don't murder' might actually have a place even if they're not justified through utilitarianism? Oh no wait, we need SCIENCE. Tell me oh wise OP, what experiment do we do to determine which principles are more important?
2 months ago
Anonymous
hedonistic utilitarian premises*
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That doesn't sound very scientific at all, or even empirical. That sounds like rationalism. What experiment did you do to determine the place of rationalism in your evaluation?
You're doing the "You cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin" >I didn't say that I don't accept pain is bad
Ok good, so we can perform an experiment where we measure the pain and pleasure produced by each ethical model to determine the best one
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You're doing the "You cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin"
Nope. I'm saying that you're not actually using scientific principles to demonstrate the superiority of science over philosophy. You are in fact making a philosophical argument; not a very good one, but you're using philosophy and not science.
>Ok good, so we can perform an experiment where we measure the pain and pleasure produced by each ethical model to determine the best one
You're presupposing utilitarianism again. I want to hear how you explain how utilitarianism is better than deontology with an experiment. Why do you think pain bad/pleasure good is a better guiding principle than other competing guiding principles?
Since you probably don't understand what those words mean, let me give you an example. It's common sense that stealing is bad. (The same justification you're using to presuppose utilitarianism; so if you object here, you're going to need a new justification). But assuming marginal utility, stealing from richer people and redistributing to poorer people will lead to a net gain of happiness.
Should we then rob all people and redistribute all wealth until it's even? Or at least until such point that we have achieved some kind of utilitarian happiness maximum? Or should we stick to our deontological guns and say that stealing is not right, even if it makes a net gain in happiness? And most important for your idiotic position, how do we determine which of these to models is better with an experiment?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm saying that you're not actually using scientific principles to demonstrate the superiority of science over philosophy.
Was it scientists or philosophers who landed us on the moon? nuff said >You're presupposing utilitarianism again
I'm presupposing the common sense notion, which you also agreed to, that pain is bad. >Should we then rob all people and redistribute all wealth until it's even?
Probably not, although with science we could run experiments to find out rather than just thinking about it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Was it scientists or philosophers who landed us on the moon? nuff said
it was physicists and engineers. stop saying "scientists" it gives too much credit to other fields that are still in their relative stone ages due to politics and lacking in a physicist culture
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Pain is...LE BAD!
Why?
2 months ago
Anonymous
pain is morally wrong because it makes me feel bad
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Things which make you feel bad are morally wrong
Why?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You can perform an experiment by stabbing yourself and then measuring how bad you feel
NTA but here you go:
I'll put you in a room with the most deranged loony bin psycho I can find. I'll rig up a controller with a button that will cause all the world's nukes to detonate and hand it to him, and make sure he's extra antsy so that any attempt to reason with him or subdue him nonviolently will cause him to push the button. You'll get a gun.
If deontology is right, you won't shoot him, because thou shalt not kill.
If utilitarianism is right, you'll magdump in his ass because saving billions of people is obviously preferable to saving one person.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If deontology is right, you won't shoot him,
Wrong! Not shooting him means shooting everyone else. Less violations of the rule against murder is obviously better
2 months ago
Anonymous
No silly, it's the other guy killing billions of people, not you.
Every.
Single.
Time I share this thought experiment, someone comes back with this exact cope, admitting the utilitarian solution is right by wording it so it sounds deontological; "thou shalt not kill unless it means less killing happens overall".
2 months ago
Anonymous
>it's the other guy killing billions of people, not you.
nope it's me by not doing anything about it. if you can defuse a bomb but you choose not to then you are just as responsible as the one placing it there
2 months ago
Anonymous
So thou shalt not kill unless it means less killing happens overall? Wow, deontology can't be beat!
2 months ago
Anonymous
1 thou shalt not kills being broken is better than 8 billion of them yes. Zero would be ideal but that is an impossible situation in your scenario
2 months ago
Anonymous
Indeed, certainly a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to the utilitarian solution which is... uh... wait a second...
2 months ago
Anonymous
the point is you cannot decide between them experimentally because both have the same outcomes
2 months ago
Anonymous
Of course they do if you move the goalposts like that.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You could just admit you need a better experiment. It can't be that hard to put morality under a microscope.
2 months ago
Anonymous
OK, when I figure out a way to stop people from shamelessly humping the goalposts all the way to fricking the other end of the field I'll let you know.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes I want updates. You could send me an email with your new experiment that isn't full of holes or publish it in a journal. Peer review is essential to scientific progress after all.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>deontology says "billions must die"
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's a strawman version of deontological ethics. >"Shooting a criminal who's an imminent danger to others, if there is no other way of resolving the situation"
doesn't violate the categorical imperative, plenty of deontological frameworks would be fine with it
2 months ago
Anonymous
And here we see the 2nd most popular cope, deference to the preeminent pseud of his day, Immanuel Kant. I'll admit I needed Google to remind me the exact wording of his categorical imperative thingy, but here we are.
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Okey dokey, so what's the maxim here? Obviously you wouldn't suppose it's "killing is always wrong" because then my example is no strawman at all. If it's anything like "one must do the greatest possible good" then whatever "deontological framework" you refer to is just rebranded utilitarianism, see above.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>what's the maxim here
I already stated it >>"Shooting a criminal who's an imminent danger to others, if there is no other way of resolving the situation" >just rebranded utilitarianism
Maybe for specific forms of rule based utilitarianism, but I don't think even those are universal
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's pretty dang specific for a maxim. Wouldn't you need a different maxim for shooting or not shooting a criminal in different circumstances? Hardly sounds like a maxim at all to me.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That's pretty dang specific for a maxim
Yes, I suppose it is, maybe it could be generalized to more circumstances, idk >Wouldn't you need a different maxim for shooting or not shooting a criminal in different circumstances
Yes, that's how maxims under kants framework are formulated >I will A in C in order to realize or produce E” where “A” is some act type, “C” is some type of circumstance, and “E” is some type of end to be realized or achieved by A in C.
from SEP
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes, that's how maxims under kants framework are formulated
Either you misunderstand Kant or Kant was a drooling moron, knowing what I know already I'm inclined towards the latter. A maxim doesn't depend on circumstances, it's fundamental. Dispute that if you want but you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the dictionary. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" is a maxim. As soon as you say "don't count your chickens before they hatch because..." it's not general or fundamental.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Considering that Kant was an 18th century german I'm sure his words aren't 1-1 with our modern english words. Also even that specific example fits into the formula >Don't count your chickens, under the circumstances where you have unhatched eggs, to produce the effect of lowering your expectations"
I don't really think it's that interesting to quibble over the meaning of various words, so unless you're going to truly engage with his ideas, I'm finished with this discussion
2 months ago
Anonymous
Fair enough, maybe the translators are to blame. Now that I think about it everyone's been missing my point completely, including myself. The question I answered was "Explain how you would do an experiment to determine whether deontological or utilitarian ethics are superior", so we're assuming a priori that we're testing a deontology that does conflict with utilitarianism in this case.
Science is philosophy, science was called natural philosophy before it was called science. For most of human history science and religion/philosophy were intertwined
The right panel depicts Christian theology, not philosophy.
way to out yourself as having never read philosophy lol
Are you moronic? Science relies very heavily on empiricism. Empiricism cannot be proven empirically, and to use it as a model requires certain axioms, like observational coherence. Making those assumptions and acting on them is philosophy. You literally cannot have science without it.
With science I can make testable predictions about the real world. That is impossible with philosophy. Philosophy is just moronic speculations that can't be proved one way or the other.
Do you even understand what the word 'empiricism' means?
No, I don't care about philosophy
How much does your tard wrangler make?
OP, you’re moronic. Science is born out of a specific philosophic tradition and relies on philosophy. It has certain philosophical principles it relies on that have inherent flaws, but we accept those flaws given the benefit that viewing the world through that lens produces.
I’m not an expert, but I took a course called the Philosophy of Science. Iirc pic related was the textbook. Find something like this and read it. Until then you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What exactly does philosophy add to the fact that "looking" is a valid method of gaining knowledge? Science works irregardless of whether some armchair pseuds fail to understand it.
Science and philosophy are not mutually exclusive you fricking moron. They are closely intertwined and always have been.
>Using Popper's philosophical idea of falsification for the "science" section to claim science has replaced philosophy
???
I mean, radical skeptics can be annoying, but that has literally always been a fringe view in philosophy that almost no one accepts. So, all this shows is that the creator of this meme knows nuthin about philosophy.
>has natural philosophy replaced philosophy
Good one op
Straw man attack spotted. You're moronic..
Science has only replaced speculation about physical phenomena. Never about the nature of things,, consciousness, morality, and everything else.
>consciousness, morality
Consciousness and morality can be explained through science
Explain how you would do an experiment to determine whether deontological or utilitarian ethics are superior.
We can easily test which ethical system causes the most amount of pain/harm
But that's only a measure of success or failure if you accept utilitarianism's premises and judge deontological ones inferior. What experiment did you do to make that determination in the first place?
It's just common sense that pain is bad. This is what I mean about science replacing philosophy, philosopher can't even accept that pain is bad.
>It's just common sense that pain is bad
That doesn't sound very scientific at all, or even empirical. That sounds like rationalism. What experiment did you do to determine the place of rationalism in your evaluation?
>This is what I mean about science replacing philosophy, philosopher can't even accept that pain is bad.
Are you stupid? I didn't say that I don't accept pain is bad. I'm saying that I'm not sure that edonistic utilitarian premises (pain is bad, pleasure is good) are necessarily triumphant over deontological ethics.
If it would cause a net happiness gain over the whole world to kill you, OP, does that mean we should line you up against the wall and shoot you? Why don't we conduct an experiment to find out? Or do you wonder if maybe deontological rules like "Don't murder' might actually have a place even if they're not justified through utilitarianism? Oh no wait, we need SCIENCE. Tell me oh wise OP, what experiment do we do to determine which principles are more important?
hedonistic utilitarian premises*
>That doesn't sound very scientific at all, or even empirical. That sounds like rationalism. What experiment did you do to determine the place of rationalism in your evaluation?
You're doing the "You cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin"
>I didn't say that I don't accept pain is bad
Ok good, so we can perform an experiment where we measure the pain and pleasure produced by each ethical model to determine the best one
>You're doing the "You cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin you cannot know nuthin"
Nope. I'm saying that you're not actually using scientific principles to demonstrate the superiority of science over philosophy. You are in fact making a philosophical argument; not a very good one, but you're using philosophy and not science.
>Ok good, so we can perform an experiment where we measure the pain and pleasure produced by each ethical model to determine the best one
You're presupposing utilitarianism again. I want to hear how you explain how utilitarianism is better than deontology with an experiment. Why do you think pain bad/pleasure good is a better guiding principle than other competing guiding principles?
Since you probably don't understand what those words mean, let me give you an example. It's common sense that stealing is bad. (The same justification you're using to presuppose utilitarianism; so if you object here, you're going to need a new justification). But assuming marginal utility, stealing from richer people and redistributing to poorer people will lead to a net gain of happiness.
Should we then rob all people and redistribute all wealth until it's even? Or at least until such point that we have achieved some kind of utilitarian happiness maximum? Or should we stick to our deontological guns and say that stealing is not right, even if it makes a net gain in happiness? And most important for your idiotic position, how do we determine which of these to models is better with an experiment?
>I'm saying that you're not actually using scientific principles to demonstrate the superiority of science over philosophy.
Was it scientists or philosophers who landed us on the moon? nuff said
>You're presupposing utilitarianism again
I'm presupposing the common sense notion, which you also agreed to, that pain is bad.
>Should we then rob all people and redistribute all wealth until it's even?
Probably not, although with science we could run experiments to find out rather than just thinking about it.
>Was it scientists or philosophers who landed us on the moon? nuff said
it was physicists and engineers. stop saying "scientists" it gives too much credit to other fields that are still in their relative stone ages due to politics and lacking in a physicist culture
>Pain is...LE BAD!
Why?
pain is morally wrong because it makes me feel bad
>Things which make you feel bad are morally wrong
Why?
You can perform an experiment by stabbing yourself and then measuring how bad you feel
NTA but here you go:
I'll put you in a room with the most deranged loony bin psycho I can find. I'll rig up a controller with a button that will cause all the world's nukes to detonate and hand it to him, and make sure he's extra antsy so that any attempt to reason with him or subdue him nonviolently will cause him to push the button. You'll get a gun.
If deontology is right, you won't shoot him, because thou shalt not kill.
If utilitarianism is right, you'll magdump in his ass because saving billions of people is obviously preferable to saving one person.
>If deontology is right, you won't shoot him,
Wrong! Not shooting him means shooting everyone else. Less violations of the rule against murder is obviously better
No silly, it's the other guy killing billions of people, not you.
Every.
Single.
Time I share this thought experiment, someone comes back with this exact cope, admitting the utilitarian solution is right by wording it so it sounds deontological; "thou shalt not kill unless it means less killing happens overall".
>it's the other guy killing billions of people, not you.
nope it's me by not doing anything about it. if you can defuse a bomb but you choose not to then you are just as responsible as the one placing it there
So thou shalt not kill unless it means less killing happens overall? Wow, deontology can't be beat!
1 thou shalt not kills being broken is better than 8 billion of them yes. Zero would be ideal but that is an impossible situation in your scenario
Indeed, certainly a reasonable conclusion, as opposed to the utilitarian solution which is... uh... wait a second...
the point is you cannot decide between them experimentally because both have the same outcomes
Of course they do if you move the goalposts like that.
You could just admit you need a better experiment. It can't be that hard to put morality under a microscope.
OK, when I figure out a way to stop people from shamelessly humping the goalposts all the way to fricking the other end of the field I'll let you know.
Yes I want updates. You could send me an email with your new experiment that isn't full of holes or publish it in a journal. Peer review is essential to scientific progress after all.
>deontology says "billions must die"
That's a strawman version of deontological ethics.
>"Shooting a criminal who's an imminent danger to others, if there is no other way of resolving the situation"
doesn't violate the categorical imperative, plenty of deontological frameworks would be fine with it
And here we see the 2nd most popular cope, deference to the preeminent pseud of his day, Immanuel Kant. I'll admit I needed Google to remind me the exact wording of his categorical imperative thingy, but here we are.
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Okey dokey, so what's the maxim here? Obviously you wouldn't suppose it's "killing is always wrong" because then my example is no strawman at all. If it's anything like "one must do the greatest possible good" then whatever "deontological framework" you refer to is just rebranded utilitarianism, see above.
>what's the maxim here
I already stated it
>>"Shooting a criminal who's an imminent danger to others, if there is no other way of resolving the situation"
>just rebranded utilitarianism
Maybe for specific forms of rule based utilitarianism, but I don't think even those are universal
That's pretty dang specific for a maxim. Wouldn't you need a different maxim for shooting or not shooting a criminal in different circumstances? Hardly sounds like a maxim at all to me.
>That's pretty dang specific for a maxim
Yes, I suppose it is, maybe it could be generalized to more circumstances, idk
>Wouldn't you need a different maxim for shooting or not shooting a criminal in different circumstances
Yes, that's how maxims under kants framework are formulated
>I will A in C in order to realize or produce E” where “A” is some act type, “C” is some type of circumstance, and “E” is some type of end to be realized or achieved by A in C.
from SEP
>Yes, that's how maxims under kants framework are formulated
Either you misunderstand Kant or Kant was a drooling moron, knowing what I know already I'm inclined towards the latter. A maxim doesn't depend on circumstances, it's fundamental. Dispute that if you want but you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the dictionary. "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" is a maxim. As soon as you say "don't count your chickens before they hatch because..." it's not general or fundamental.
Considering that Kant was an 18th century german I'm sure his words aren't 1-1 with our modern english words. Also even that specific example fits into the formula
>Don't count your chickens, under the circumstances where you have unhatched eggs, to produce the effect of lowering your expectations"
I don't really think it's that interesting to quibble over the meaning of various words, so unless you're going to truly engage with his ideas, I'm finished with this discussion
Fair enough, maybe the translators are to blame. Now that I think about it everyone's been missing my point completely, including myself. The question I answered was "Explain how you would do an experiment to determine whether deontological or utilitarian ethics are superior", so we're assuming a priori that we're testing a deontology that does conflict with utilitarianism in this case.
Consciousness and morality are outside the scope of philosophy.
only physicists have figured out how to do science correctly, with their positivism and pauli rudeness
most other sciences are full of political morons and so are very primitive. ron maimon was right about this
My, what an intriguing thread.
Science is just a philosophy that hasn't yet been falsified.
Science by itself does not analyze ethics, goals, values, or the metaphysical "inner workings" and "glue" that holds everything together.
Science is philosophy, science was called natural philosophy before it was called science. For most of human history science and religion/philosophy were intertwined
Philosophy is prior to 'Science' you silly billys. Everyone has a worldview.