Belief Vs. Knowledge

[alexey]

That's really the point though isn't it. Morality is a personal code which one holds oneself. A personal code which sometimes is affected by groups like religious affiliation. You see the question of morality to be separate from diet; but the majority of the worlds population disagrees with you... and many of them disagree with each other on what diet is moral.

You do not get speak for "majority of the worlds population".

Yes some people confuse questions of gastronomy with questions of morality. I'll give you that much.

[PeterMP]

Oh Peter why argue about how to name things.

 

Because it helps in establishing common knowledge between people.

 

You should try reading a little Pinker on the topic he is actually an expert on:

 

http://6500xf.blogspot.com/2011/12/usage-in-american-heritage-dictionary.html

 

(In this particular case, it matters because you've made several claims about "sociocultural evolution" that infer things that people wouldn't generally consider to be true with respect to what you've called "biological evolution" (e.g. controlled by humans not natural selection.))

[alexey]

Because it helps in establishing common knowledge between people.

...

You took (what I understand) is typically called "cultural/sociocultural evolution" and tried to call it "just changed conditions". I do not see how that is helpful.

Let's recap how we got here. You claimed that any given cultural practice at any given point in time is awesomely beneficial for that time/place because of evolution. I think that is a bad argument that borders on nonsense.

[JMS]

You do not get speak for "majority of the worlds population".

Yes some people confuse questions of gastronomy with questions of morality. I'll give you that much.

 

You just continue to miss the point.    Morality is a personal choice..   So while you may not like to live under Muslem, Jewish, Hindu, or Catholic dietary laws.    It's a fact the folks who subscribe to these beliefs make up the majority of the worlds population.

 

7 Billion people in the world...  Catholics, Muslems, and Hindu's make up a little more than 3.5 billion

[PeterMP]

You took what I understand is typically called "cultural/sociocultural evolution" and tried to call it "just changed conditions". I do not see how that is helpful.

 

No, I didn't.  I said I don't know how much is sociocultural evolution or just changed conditions.

 

Culture is not the same as the environment.

 

Is violence down because culture has changed or is violence down because conditions have changed (more and regular food supply)?

 

This is a book called "Not by genes alone" (a very good book).

 

"Instead, our concern is that lumping culture with other environmental influences leads people to ignore the novel evolutionary processes that are created by culture. Selection shapes individual learning mechanisms so that interaction with the environment produces adaptive behavior."

 

So is violence down because selection has happened on culture and generated new or changed adaptive behavior or has the environment changed?

 

(**EDIT**

 

Though, I don't think you use the word sociocultural evoltion in the same manner that I'm used to seeing it when you talk about people controlling culture and not natural selection and the way you seem to want to create a division between sociocultural evolution and "biological evolution" as if they are two distinct things (which is also discussed in the link I included).  So that might be part of the problem.

 

Forgot the link:

 

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/712842.html

 

)

[alexey]

... Morality is a personal choice.. ...

I strongly disagree with this. Morality is about how people treat each other.

[alexey]

...

Is violence down because culture has changed or is violence down because conditions have changed (more and regular food supply)?

...

Violence is down because of false dichotomies

You tried to argue for cultural relativism by claiming that evolution necessarily produces highly optimized cultural adaptations. I rejected your argument and disagreed with your conclusion.

[mcsluggo]

I have no idea how you'd get that . I don't know if obsessed Is the right word but I'm certainly passionate about it. The reason for my passion is that so many things I care about come down to the way people determine what is true, make decisions, etc. The way we are treating other people, the environment, our policies, our government, our social safety nets, the kind of world we leave for our children - all depends on our ability to make good reality-based decisions. How can one not be passionate about that?

Plus, my friends don't care about this stuff, my wife does not want to talk to me about it (I wonder why?? ) and my kids are still too young...

I do have other interests - parenting, history, neurobiology, gardening, for example. Whenever such discussions come up, I happily participate.

 

how come my neighbor's tomoto plants are tomato bazookas this time of year, and mine have always been withered up and dead for a month by now?  (i premsume it is not a lack of faith...)

[PeterMP]

Violence is down because of false dichotomies

You tried to argue for cultural relativism by claiming that evolution necessarily produces highly optimized cultural adaptations. I rejected your argument and disagreed with your conclusion.

 

Why didn't you quote the first line of the post?

 

"I said I don't know how much is sociocultural evolution or just changed conditions."

 

Or the first line of the previous post.

 

And no I didn't and when you tried to pin this on me before I explained why my statements weren't relevant to the particual cultural phenomonea you tried to pin on me as being a positive and pointed out that my previous posts did contain relevant qualifiers for what I was talking about.

Let's recap how we got here. You claimed that any given cultural practice at any given point in time is awesomely beneficial for that time/place because of evolution. I think that is a bad argument that borders on nonsense.

 

I didn't and when you tried to make this claim before I indicated how your claim wasn't relevant and pointed out my other posts did have qualifiers in them.

 

**EDIT**

Here's a quote from the previous post, which I've already quoted back to you once before (the 3rd time I've put it in this thread- the original post and now two quotes of it).

 

"That you would see violence mantained that way accross all human cultures/populations at the levels it is unlikely unless it has/had an evolutionary advantage to it (I'll say the samething is true for homosexuality). And that's basic evolutionary biology."

 

First, note I'm talking about something that crosses cultures and populations at particular levels, which certainly isn't the case for "any given cultural practice" (and note this true in the context of time and space).  In addition, note the use of the word unlikley.

 

**EDIT 2**

Just for a comparision that people won't see as negative, I think art and music likely are similarily evolutionarily advantageous (conserved across cultures/populations and therefore likely evolutionarily advantageous).

[alexey]

how come my neighbor's tomoto plants are tomato bazookas this time of year, and mine have always been withered up and dead for a month by now? (i premsume it is not a lack of faith...)

im more into cucumbers at this point, but so far my biggest discovery was about sun and water. Turns out plants just love that stuff!! This year I tried the earthbox and it was awesome.

[JMS]

I strongly disagree with this. Morality is about how people treat each other.

 

So morality only comes into play when it's interpersonal interactions?   What about they guy who doesn't report his dead mother and continues to collect her social security for 10 years?   Is that moral, or immoral?    What about the Chinese officeal who sold the US poison in an attempt to raise the protine content of a food aditive... was he moral because it was the American companies who used and sold the products to the consumer,  not him?    What about if you tortur animals is that moral because no people are involved?

What if you steal money from a corporation or a large trust or the government?   Is that moral because no people are harmed?

 

Does morality change?  Does everybody agree on what is moral? 

 

No morality is a code of what is right and wrong.. but it's a personal code and it's not universally subscribed too.   And it doesn't strictly adhere to secular law....   

 

The existence of unjust laws (such as those enforcing slavery) proves that morality and law are not identical and do not coincide.  The existence of laws that serve to defend basic values--such as laws against murder, rape, malicious defamation of character, fraud, bribery, etc. --prove that the two can work together.   But that's as far as that goes.  Laws govern conduct at least partly through fear of punishment. Morality, when it is the guiding factor, governs conduct without compulsion. The virtuous person does the appropriate thing because it is the fine or noble thing to do.  Morality can influence the law only when consensus or a majority is reached.  Their are  fundimental differences between laws and morals.  

[alexey]

Peter,

Can you clarify your views on something... How do you think we should go about figuring out costs/benefits/morality of social practices?

[alexey]

So morality only comes into play when it's interpersonal interactions? What about they guy who doesn't report his dead mother and continues to collect her social security for 10 years? Is that moral, or immoral? ...

No morality is a code of what is right and wrong.. but it's a personal code and it's not universally subscribed too. And it doesn't strictly adhere to secular law....

...

When thinking about whether something is moral or immoral, I examine impacts on experiences of creatures. What about you?

[JMS]

When thinking about whether something is moral or immoral, I examine impacts on experiences of creatures. What about you?

 

So you are a vegan then?   You only walk on the side walk as not to disturb insects?    You are trying to walk a fine line,  which when tested makes your values sound arbitrary....

 

I would argue your values aren't arbitrary.  Your morality if not informed by religion was informed by your parrents,  or your experiences,  or your education.   I would argue you have a code of conduct which differs from the laws we as a society live under;  you just aven't investigated that distiction.

 

Morality is a personal code of conduct sometimes informed by groups which you choose to associate with,  such as religious groups.  As such Morality as an individual value doesn't change much.   Populations have a wide diversity of what they consider moral and which view is most popular changes cyclically in that population.  Laws which reflect more consensus values change more frequently because populations change values more than people change values.    This is due to the fact that a population is constantly reinventing itself as new folks move in and out of that population...

 

Thus 40 years ago segregation was moral and as the laws changed many folks who held that view were overnight forced to accept the legality of desegregation even though they morally remained opposed to it.    Today we face that same mechanism over gay marriage.   I imagine folks were were opposed to it;  remain opposed to it.   The laws are changing because younger voters who are up and coming frankly have different personal beliefs on the subject which is eclipsing the detractors as they eclipse the detractors in the population.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Can you clarify your views on something... How do you think we should go about figuring out costs/benefits/morality of social practices?

 

At a big picture "we" level, I don't know (you've essentially asked me the same thing before and my answer hasn't changed, and I doubt it will change before I die). 

 

I actually vasilate from extremes to a certain extent to what we're doing isn't working at all and we should throw everythign out and try starting over (I once started a thread raising the question if we should re-evaluate the "evidence" that capitialism and superior to communism) and that even really worrying/thinking about it is a waste of time because evolution (at all levels) will do what it does and there isn't really anything that "we" or I can do about it.

 

And then there is just the day-to-day go through life of what works for me (but you won't like that answer).

 

Realistically, I don't claim to have any real sweeping ideas.

 

What I will tell you is what I don't think helps:

 

1.  arguments that are based in intellectually dishonesty

2.  essentially repeating/recycling arguments where the flaws have already been pointed out to you won't work

3.  pretending to ourselves and/or to others that we know things that we really don't know

4.  pointing to other people/groups and saying they are the problem- we're all part of the problem, including (especially) myself.

 

(and these points go in both directions and apply to more than one person that has posted in this thread)

 

If there is any hope, it has to start with us being honest with ourselves and then with others.

 

Now, in this thread you've said two things:

 

1.  Science can make it obvious that somethings are bad.

2. "Individuals can influence the course/speed of sociocultural evolution." (and this is the quote from your post).

 

I'm curious if you can expound on either one of those especially where the role of individuals or even the whole human species falls on influencing things that are subject to evolution as compared to or with respect to (natural) selection.

[alexey]

So you are a vegan then? You only walk on the side walk as not to disturb insects? You are trying to walk a fine line, which when tested makes your values sound arbitrary....

Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". I do not claim to live a perfectly moral life but I do make moral judgements with a reason/system.

I would argue your values aren't arbitrary. Your morality if not informed by religion was informed by your parrents, or your experiences, or your education. ...

Yes and I would argue some ways of informing moral decisions are superior to others.

...

Thus 40 years ago segregation was moral and as the laws changed many folks who held that view were overnight forced to accept the legality of desegregation even though they morally remained opposed to it. Today we face that same mechanism over gay marriage. I imagine folks were were opposed to it; remain opposed to it. The laws are changing because younger voters who are up and coming frankly have different personal beliefs on the subject which is eclipsing the detractors as they eclipse the detractors in the population.

I get an impression that by "morality" you mean "thoughts and feelings"

[alexey]

At a big picture "we" level, I don't know (you've essentially asked me the same thing before and my answer hasn't changed, and I doubt it will change before I die).

I actually vasilate from extremes to a certain extent to what we're doing isn't working at all and we should throw everythign out and try starting over (I once started a thread raising the question if we should re-evaluate the "evidence" that capitialism and superior to communism) and that even really worrying/thinking about it is a waste of time because evolution (at all levels) will do what it does and there isn't really anything that "we" or I can do about it.

...

Well this way you can view everything as a waste of time, right? We're here for a blink of an eye, then we're gone, and evolution will go on. If you do not write that book, make that discovery, etc, somebody in the future will make it. You can take this all the way down to existential anxiety, not having a divine inherent purpose but discovering what is important to you, what you are good at, applying yourself.

But what choice do we have on the matter? Shall we pretend to know things we do not know, pretend to have a purpose instilled in us from above? Is that a workable way of moving forward? I think not. As Bertrand Russel put it in his "A Free Man's worship"

... That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. ...

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/archives/a%20free%20man%27s%20worship.htm

And then there is just the day-to-day go through life of what works for me (but you won't like that answer).

Realistically, I don't claim to have any real sweeping ideas.

What I will tell you is what I don't think helps:

1. arguments that are based in intellectually dishonesty

Agreed. How do we reduce intellectual dishonesty and promote honesty? I think we can promote intellectual honesty if we stop saying that that pretending to know things (faith) is a virtue.

2. essentially repeating/recycling arguments where the flaws have already been pointed out to you won't work

Agreed, as long as we are careful not to dismiss new important developments as repeating/recycling.

3. pretending to ourselves and/or to others that we know things that we really don't know

Agreed, pretending to know things we don't really know (faith) is not a virtue.

4. pointing to other people/groups and saying they are the problem- we're all part of the problem, including (especially) myself.

Agreed when it comes to demonisation of the "other".

However, it is important not to equate people and ideas they espouse. We should never say other people/groups are the problem, but we should be free and open to point out problematic ideas.

For example, an idea that creator of the universe wrote one of our iron age books is just a bad idea. People who believe it are not the problem, but the idea itself is a problem. More over, working against that idea, just like working against other bad ideas, could be something that makes this world a better place.

Now, in this thread you've said two things:

1. Science can make it obvious that somethings are bad.

2. "Individuals can influence the course/speed of sociocultural evolution." (and this is the quote from your post).

I'm curious if you can expound on either one of those especially where the role of individuals or even the whole human species falls on influencing things that are subject to evolution as compared to or with respect to (natural) selection.

You still seem to conflate biological and sociocultural evolutions. I see many important differences between them.

I am not sure what you are asking. Hopefully my example will work. Science can show that vast majority of people consder it bad to die a violent death. Our ability to enjoy extremely low rates of violent deaths today is a result of many individuals influencing the course/speed of sociocultural evolution. Invention of the printing press, for example, can be viewed as the spark that started the Renaissance, followed by the Enlightment, leading into the modern age. It is easy to imagine this process happening quicker or slower should this important invention have been made sooner or delayed.

[PeterMP]

I think we can promote intellectual honesty if we stop saying that that pretending to know things (faith) is a virtue.

You still seem to conflate biological and sociocultural evolutions. I see many important differences between them.

I am not sure what you are asking. Hopefully my example will work. Science can show that vast majority of people consder it bad to die a violent death. Our ability to enjoy extremely low rates of violent deaths today is a result of many individuals influencing the course/speed of sociocultural evolution. Invention of the printing press, for example, can be viewed as the spark that started the Renaissance, followed by the Enlightment, leading into the modern age. It is easy to imagine this process happening quicker or slower should this important invention have been made sooner or delayed.

 

First, I think you are defining faith in a manner not done by most people.  Even this thread is making a distinction between belief and knowledge, and I think that is a common distinction made by most people and most reference sources, and then faith is tied to belief and not knowledge.

 

Faith (what google comes up w/ on my screen w/o my clicking any link):

 

 

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

 

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust or belief."

 

Note, the absence of the word knowledge and even the "rather than proof" part in the 2nd defintion.  Now belief:

 

 

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

     trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

 

"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a conjecture or premise to be true."

 

And if you do the reverse and look up knowledge, the defintions don't mention belief or faith.

 

I don't mind if people say they believe something or they have faith that something is true.  I do think many times people do not recognize or understand where the evidence for that belief/faith comes from and that's an issue.

 

That's true about science and violence, but that doesn't make it obvious that doing certain things are bad.

 

Just because I don't want to die a violent death does not make it obvious that be not killing people violently is bad.

 

MAYBE if there is some association between the behavior and the event (e.g. me killing people violently leads to an increased probability that I will die violently) that will be true, but in many cases that's not going to be true (this isn't true in many cases in the context of things like bullying and ridicule where being part of the "in group" and ridiculing the "out group" actually reduces your chances of being ridiculed (i.e. the "in group" behavior will build "in group" unity and decrease issues like "in group" bullying).  I suspect this partly is what happened in the Dolphins locker room and Martin was the out group).

 

In addition, there are the people out there don't mind (and even seem to want to) die violently.

 

How has science made it obivious to them that dying (or killing people) violently is bad just because most people don't want to?

 

And with respect to the printing press, all of what you say is good.  But I doubt the person that created the printing press was planning on it, and I actually doubt that they'd think our modern culture was "good".

 

Conditions (the environment) beyond his control actually dictated the evolution of the culture.

 

What are you doing and what do you think you are speeding up, and is there any evidence that you are correct?

[alexey]

First, I think you are defining faith in a manner not done by most people. Even this thread is making a distinction between belief and knowledge, and I think that is a common distinction made by most people and most reference sources, and then faith is tied to belief and not knowledge.

...

I don't mind if people say they believe something or they have faith that something is true. I do think many times people do not recognize or understand where the evidence for that belief/faith comes from and that's an issue.

Yes, and this is how we could draw the line between belief and faith:

When you believe something, you either know that it is true (knowledge) or you pretend to know (faith).

That's true about science and violence, but that doesn't make it obvious that doing certain things are bad.

Just because I don't want to die a violent death does not make it obvious that be not killing people violently is bad.

MAYBE if there is some association between the behavior and the event (e.g. me killing people violently leads to an increased probability that I will die violently) that will be true, but in many cases that's not going to be true (this isn't true in many cases in the context of things like bullying and ridicule where being part of the "in group" and ridiculing the "out group" actually reduces your chances of being ridiculed (i.e. the "in group" behavior will build "in group" unity and decrease issues like "in group" bullying). I suspect this partly is what happened in the Dolphins locker room and Martin was the out group).

In addition, there are the people out there don't mind (and even seem to want to) die violently.

How has science made it obivious to them that dying (or killing people) violently is bad just because most people don't want to?

Let's set the BABAM game aside and acknowledge that human beings generally have some shared moral preferences. I don't want to get distraced with silliness like "you don't value getting a finger shopped off every morning, but somebody might". We can also close some gaps with the compassion and golden rule, e.g. you do not get to say that something is OK to be done to other people but not yourself. Note that I do not consider this question closed, but I do think it gives us enough groundwork to deal with easy cases such as slavery, discrimination, denial of access to education, etc.

Then, we can talk about how we go about building a society that reflects our shared moral preferences, or at least does not clearly go against them. Yes there are hard problems on the way. We cannot map out a full path forward, but there is plenty of low hanging fruit. We are pretty far from running out of obvious ways in which we can improve our society.

And with respect to the printing press, all of what you say is good. But I doubt the person that created the printing press was planning on it, and I actually doubt that they'd think our modern culture was "good".

Conditions (the environment) beyond his control actually dictated the evolution of the culture.

What are you doing and what do you think you are speeding up, and is there any evidence that you are correct?

Well obviously his first reaction would be "iron dragon in the sky, BAD!!!"

I am attempting to promote critical thinking and reality-based decision making. There is evidence of these things being beneficial. Whether or not I am making a difference, that I do not know.

[PeterMP]

Yes, and this is how we could draw the line between belief and faith:

When you believe something, you either know that it is true (knowledge) or you pretend to know (faith).

Let's set the BABAM game aside and acknowledge that human beings generally have some shared moral preferences. I don't want to get distraced with silliness like "you don't value getting a finger shopped off every morning, but somebody might". We can also close some gaps with the compassion and golden rule, e.g. you do not get to say that something is OK to be done to other people but not yourself. Note that I do not consider this question closed, but I do think it gives us enough groundwork to deal with easy cases such as slavery, discrimination, denial of access to education, etc.

Then, we can talk about how we go about building a society that reflects our shared moral preferences, or at least does not clearly go against them. Yes there are hard problems on the way. We cannot map out a full path forward, but there is plenty of low hanging fruit. We are pretty far from running out of obvious ways in which we can improve our society.

Well obviously his first reaction would be "iron dragon in the sky, BAD!!!"

I am attempting to promote critical thinking and reality-based decision making. There is evidence of these things being beneficial. Whether or not I am making a difference, that I do not know.

 

1.  You know what, if your consistent with yourself and others, I don't care.  But remember you don't prove things even with science, you only disprove likely alternatives.

 

2.  I agree with your statement, but I don't think science makes that obvious.  Why should I treat people like I want to be treated?  There's no reason to believe it is going to help me?  There's no reason to believe that treating other people the way I want to be treated is going to cause me to be treated that way.  Where's the science in the previous post?  You've not references or invoked a single bit of science.

 

3.  I think you are trying to promote criticial thinking based on your assumptions and your reality, while not even attempting to disprove any of the likely competitors to your reality (i.e. your belief in your reality is not science based that does require us to disprove likely alternatives).  I think that actually is NOT truley promoting critical thinking.  I think you have a belief in your reality that is based on faith and regularly, at least on this board, (and I suspect to yourself) do not acknowledge that fact.

 

Of course, I think #3 is true essentially for everybody, especially with respect to living life day-to-day.

 

4.  Beneficial for what or to whom?  How do you measure beneficial?  Who decides?

 

If you are initially successful at any sort of large scale manner, in terms of defining things based on "science" in the way that you suggest (e.g. people do start to believe that science makes certain moral choices "obvioius"), that long term the consequences will be negative to science and science based "knowledge".

 

I will point out if you are trying to influence the evolution of culture by spending your time making posts on a page that is dominated by adult males, the approach that you seem to be taking would be an awful approach.  And then that's where the issues of actual intended consequences vs. actual consequences come in again.  Your current approach has a low success of working (based on science based information) and therefore a high chance of something else unpredicted happening.

[alexey]

2. I agree with your statement, but I don't think science makes that obvious. Why should I treat people like I want to be treated? There's no reason to believe it is going to help me? There's no reason to believe that treating other people the way I want to be treated is going to cause me to be treated that way. Where's the science in the previous post? You've not references or invoked a single bit of science.

I see at least two ways to apply science here. Game theory and other similar fields could show, for example, that perpetrating a violent act in turn increases your chances of being a victim of violence. Biology also tells us that we have things like "mirror neurons" that contribute to our powerful capacity to model other people's mental states. We can and actually do experience other people's mental states. Thus the golden rule is directly grounded in our biology and social nature. Unless our machinery is compromised, of course, which can be done by dehumanisation via propaganda, etc.

3. I think you are trying to promote criticial thinking based on your assumptions and your reality, while not even attempting to disprove any of the likely competitors to your reality (i.e. your belief in your reality is not science based that does require us to disprove likely alternatives). I think that actually is NOT truley promoting critical thinking. I think you have a belief in your reality that is based on faith and regularly, at least on this board, (and I suspect to yourself) do not acknowledge that fact.

I do not know what to make of this. I think we mean different things by the word "reality".

There is a reality which we all share. It is a reality in which we can find the Washington Redskins. It is not a perfect reality (we are at 3-6), but it is the one in which we find ourselves.

It seems you are using the word "faith" to lump methodological naturalism together with woo-woo. I disagree. Faith is when you pretend to know things you do not know. I am not pretending to know that I am posting this on ES. I could be wrong about it, but I am not pretending to know it. If asked how I know, at no point would I need to invoke "faith".

You seem to imply that all sets of beliefs require rejection of some other beliefs and thus, at some level, faith. I disagree with that as well. I see it as a question about burden of proof. Unless something meets the burden of proof, why would we even take it seriously?

4. Beneficial for what or to whom? How do you measure beneficial? Who decides?

If you are initially successful at any sort of large scale manner, in terms of defining things based on "science" in the way that you suggest (e.g. people do start to believe that science makes certain moral choices "obvioius"), that long term the consequences will be negative to science and science based "knowledge".

I will point out if you are trying to influence the evolution of culture by spending your time making posts on a page that is dominated by adult males, the approach that you seem to be taking would be an awful approach. And then that's where the issues of actual intended consequences vs. actual consequences come in again. Your current approach has a low success of working (based on science based information) and therefore a high chance of something else unpredicted happening.

I do not put on my Carl Sagan Cape and log onto ES for the betterment of humanity There is a whole ecosystem of skeptics, scientists, philosophers, etc, who spend tons of time fighting against bad ideas, charlatans, and so on. I have some ideas about possibly contributing in a meaningful way, but I'm pretty far from that. I am just a guy out there talking about stuff that interests me...

[PeterMP]

I see at least two ways to apply science here. Game theory and other similar fields could show, for example, that perpetrating a violent act in turn increases your chances of being a victim of violence. Biology also tells us that we have things like "mirror neurons" that contribute to our powerful capacity to model other people's mental states. We can and actually do experience other people's mental states. Thus the golden rule is directly grounded in our biology and social nature. Unless our machinery is compromised, of course, which can be done by dehumanisation via propaganda, etc.

I do not know what to make of this. I think we mean different things by the word "reality".

There is a reality which we all share. It is a reality in which we can find the Washington Redskins. It is not a perfect reality (we are at 3-6), but it is the one in which we find ourselves.

It seems you are using the word "faith" to lump methodological naturalism together with woo-woo. I disagree. Faith is when you pretend to know things you do not know. I am not pretending to know that I am posting this on ES. I could be wrong about it, but I am not pretending to know it. If asked how I know, at no point would I need to invoke "faith".

You seem to imply that all sets of beliefs require rejection of some other beliefs and thus, at some level, faith. I disagree with that as well. I see it as a question about burden of proof. Unless something meets the burden of proof, why would we even take it seriously?

I do not put on my Carl Sagan Cape and log onto ES for the betterment of humanity There is a whole ecosystem of skeptics, scientists, philosophers, etc, who spend tons of time fighting against bad ideas, charlatans, and so on. I have some ideas about possibly contributing in a meaningful way, but I'm pretty far from that. I am just a guy out there talking about stuff that interests me...

 

1.  It could and that might matter to some, but what about the people that don't care- the people that actually seek out violence?  Has game theory than made it obious to them that being violent is good?

 

And as I've said, I suspect that it is true for violence, but with respect to things like bullying and ridicule that probably isn't the case.

 

2.  You would essentially invoke that your senses are reporting to you as interperted by your brain that you are posting on this board.  However, you are taking on faith that your senses are reporting accurate information and your brain properly decodes that information. 

 

You've just put another layer of stuff between the faith part and drawing the conclusion.  How does that matter?

 

A foundation built on sand is still a foundation build on sand irregardless of how many floors above the sand/foundation you are.

 

Whether that's your intention or not doesn't even really matter.  The point still stands.  No more than the guy that invented the printing press meant to launch the renissance and modern society.  He was just doing what he did and unintended thing happend.  The same is true for you and others.

[alexey]

1. It could and that might matter to some, but what about the people that don't care- the people that actually seek out violence? Has game theory than made it obious to them that being violent is good?

,

And as I've said, I suspect that it is true for violence, but with respect to things like bullying and ridicule that probably isn't the case.

That's a good question. How do you think we should handle people who are so different from everybody else that they cannot participate in society?

 

2. You would essentially invoke that your senses are reporting to you as interperted by your brain that you are posting on this board. However, you are taking on faith that your senses are reporting accurate information and your brain properly decodes that information.

That's just silly. I have no faith in my senses. If I start hearing or seeing things that are not real, I will stop trusting my senses and go to the doctor.

 

...

Whether that's your intention or not doesn't even really matter. The point still stands. No more than the guy that invented the printing press meant to launch the renissance and modern society. He was just doing what he did and unintended thing happend. The same is true for you and others.

The guy probably had at least some interest in spreading literacy, and it is quite possible that he would be really proud about contributing to humanity.

Think of our humble Founding Fathers who understood that they were doing something special, yet could not have possibly predicted the current state of affairs.

We cannot know the future but we can and should predict something. For example, unless we destroy the Earth or each other, Will there be a time when all people have adequate access to food, medicine, birth control, equal rights, perhaps indefinite lives (i think aging is an engineering problem), let go of superstitions and religions, and so on? I think so, and I think people of the future would consider the way we currently handle each other, our environment, etc, to be barbaric and shameful, albeit an improvement over the way things were done before. As small and insignificant I may be, I still want to be on the right side of history.

[PeterMP]

That's a good question. How do you think we should handle people who are so different from everybody else that they cannot participate in society?

 

That's just silly. I have no faith in my senses. If I start hearing or seeing things that are not real, I will stop trusting my senses and go to the doctor.

 

The guy probably had at least some interest in spreading literacy, and it is quite possible that he would be really proud about contributing to humanity.

Think of our humble Founding Fathers who understood that they were doing something special, yet could not have possibly predicted the current state of affairs.

We cannot know the future but we can and should predict something. For example, unless we destroy the Earth or each other, Will there be a time when all people have adequate access to food, medicine, birth control, equal rights, perhaps indefinite lives (i think aging is an engineering problem), let go of superstitions and religions, and so on? I think so, and I think people of the future would consider the way we currently handle each other, our environment, etc, to be barbaric and shameful, albeit an improvement over the way things were done before. As small and insignificant I may be, I still want to be on the right side of history.

 

*EDIT*

1.  I don't know, but I'm not the person that claims to have answers.  You've essentially made the same claim (changing prove to make obvious doesn't significantly affect the claim being made) for multiple years on this board even though I've been essentially pointing out the same problem.  Can you address the question or not?  If you cannot address it, will you stop making the claim?

 

**EDIT 2**

And my point wasn't just about the extreme population.  If game theory comes back and says that for many people bullying as much as possible w/o their being an associated penalty in the work force is "good" (it leads to them less likely being bullied themselves and it negatively affects the job performance of some of their co-workers making the bully more likely to get raises and promotions) are we going then to say that pushing the envelope as far as possible with respect to bullying is a good thing for those people?

 

Can you address those points or will you committ to quit making the associated claims that you've been making for years?

 

*/EDIT*

 

2.  Then how do you know you are posting on this board?  Is it not because that's what your senses tell you?  How do you know the computer that you are typing on is actually even a physical thing?

 

3.  It is possible, but is there any reason to believe that it is not equally possible that he woudln't be?

 

4.  But again, your assuming that they'd be happy with the out come.  Would Thomas Jefferson ("peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none") be happy with the US today?

 

If you brought Thomas Jefferson to the US today, he might think we're a bunch of idiots, and the whole idea of democracy was clearly badly flawed and giving the average (and even below average person) a say in their government was a mistake based on what we've done.

 

You might be involved in something historically significant, but if the significance is that it generally leads to a greater distrust of science then you aren't going to be happy with the out come.

 

It would still be historically significant, but not in the manner you intend.

[alexey]

Peter,

You pretend to know that god wrote a book. I know that scientists publish papers. Are you saying both are examples of the same thing?