All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed and condemned.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
---Arthur Schopenhauer (1n 1818)
All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed and condemned.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
I see what you mean.... when I pointed out a series of logical flaws in your work, You didn't respond with any reasoned argument, you ridiculed and condemned me with "Don't try to tell us these Dimension of Value are useless and are just "nonsense" or "'rubbish'"...to use your sophisticated philosophical vocabulary."
Yep, got that covered with the bit where you wrote "There cannot be a Science of Ethics because Pants says so. And he persistently says so dogmatically and emphatically". Again, instead of attempting to make any rational point of merit.
Can't see that happening though. You have wasted your life in promotion of an obviously absurd pseudo-science and you are clearly so over-invested in it that you absolutely fall apart when challenged.
So well done you, you are really doing as well as I could possibly expect of you.Jeffrey Shallit wrote: Science, Pseudoscience, and The Three Stages of Truth
This dubious Schopenhauer citation has been used to support non-mainstream or controversial
views on such diverse topics as the feelings of fish [3], megadose vitamin C therapy
[32], drug legalization [25], network marketing [12], acupuncture [33], supranational government
[24], repressed memory [28], libertarianism [35], anti-vaccination [9], and human
cloning [23]. It has even been cited in a court case in Florida [18]. A common feature of all
these citations is the lack of any reference to where in Schopenhauer’s work the quotation
can be found.
---Nelson Mandella
Achieving a big worthwhile goal is always "impossible"
---- until it's done !
So you are surrendering, you cannot explain why this thing you are selling is a science, and you are still resoorting to nothing better than facebook memes with dubiously attributed quotations?
This reminded me of an old Dilbert cartoon. Dogbert teaches a team-building seminar at Dilbert's work place. Dogbert first asks the seminar attendees to each sign a blank cheque payable to him. Then Doigbert says, "In this seminar, you'll learn that trust is an excellent virtue for others to have."prof wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am
The values which emerged (as those upon which there is a global-wide consensus that this is what "ethics" is about) are these:
Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Compassion, Self-control, Commitment, Fairness, Moral Courage, and Cooperation.
If Ethics means anything it is a concern with these values.
-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:18 amprof wrote: ↑Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am
The values which emerged (as those upon which there is a global-wide consensus that this is what "ethics" is about) are these:
Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Compassion, Self-control, Commitment, Fairness, Moral Courage, and Cooperation.
If Ethics means anything it is a concern with these values.
. Practicing those values indiscriminately and at all times, as you suggest, make the practicants as well as the community vulnerable and defenseless.
Where and when did I suggest this?
You wouldn't put words in my mouth, would you?
By now you've become jittery, from all the negative criticism, methinks.
prof wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:15 amThe values which emerged (as those upon which there is a global-wide consensus that this is what "ethics" is about) are these:
Honesty, Respect, Responsibility, Compassion, Self-control, Commitment, Fairness, Moral Courage, and Cooperation.
If Ethics means anything it is a concern with these values.
[Incidentally, centering in on values avoids all the unnecessary difficulties that arise when "action" is made the central focus. For that results in grappling with such pseudo-issues as "Is a lie wrong because of the results that may ensue, or because it is a lie - and lies are always forbidden?" To phrase it another way: "Is a lie permissible when it leads to some good outcome (as a Consequentialist would argue), or is it forbidden just because the act is a lie?" (and Deontology explains why a lie is always wrong since it can't be universalized without ending all civilization.)
Philosophers have been known to dispute these matters, while slipping easily among usage of the terms "consequence," "act," "action," and "activity," without defining any of these words, or bothering to differentiate them.]
It is logical, for theoretic convenience, to divide Ethics into two branches: Individual Ethics and Social Ethics. Then the question arises, How classify the shared community values? In what branch do each of them belong?
It seems to me that it is sensible to regard Honesty, Compassion, Fairness and Cooperation as concerns where others are involved, and thus I would put them in the Social Ethics department of Ethical Theory.
Furthermore, Commitment and Self-control are best classified as belonging to Individual Ethics as topics for analysis and explication.
There are however values that overlap both fields. Here I would say belong: Respect, Responsibility, and Moral Courage {and maybe even Honesty, since we can lie to ourselves.} An individual can have Self-Respect and can respect others. There is Responsibility assumed by the person as part of a commitment to be a moral individual of good character who wants to live ethically; and there definitely is also Social Responsibility (which includes a quest for social justice, and an extension of human rights (to gays, women, those of dark complexion, those of 'foreign' national origin, or who hold 'strange' religious ideas, etc.)
Moral Courage, when it takes the form of an individual being a whistle-blower who unearths and reveals corruption in an institution, in government, or in a corporation or business falls into the intersection of Individual and Social Ethics. It is inter-departmental - interdisciplinary, so to speak.
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
Just so we are clear, is Dr. Bloom aware that you are claiming he is a proponent of your 'scientific' methodology?prof wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:03 am The Scientific American report. which includes an interview with Dr. Paul Bloom, begins this way:
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
As I said in several of my writings, the experimental branch of the new Science of the moral sense (the Science of Ethics) is today known as Moral Psychology.
So, readers, where do you stand in the Poll?
>>>Am not claiming anything about proponents.....FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:09 pmJust so we are clear, is Dr. Bloom aware that you are claiming he is a proponent of your 'scientific' methodology?prof wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:03 am The Scientific American report. which includes an interview with Dr. Paul Bloom, begins this way:
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
As I said in several of my writings, the experimental branch of the new Science of the moral sense (the Science of Ethics) is today known as Moral Psychology.
So, readers, where do you stand in the Poll?
You are becoming forgetful. I didn't. I concurred only with the start where you cut and pasted a perfectly standard definition of science. But your thing doesn't have the potential to meet that standard, so you moved the goalposts by stating that engineering is science (not agreed) and subjective at that.prof wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:28 am I am at a loss as to why you put(the concept) scientific in quotes, since in an earlier post you concurred with my definition and description of science and scientific method, as cited in an early chapter of: http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf
In Appendix 1, HVP is not described. I have read the appendix and have not been informed in the least about what HVP is or how it is done. It is just a weird list of boasts about it being used to make floorplans for supermarkets and stuff. It certianly has the appearance of being based on self assessment questionnaire forms to be honest. I'm not saying those are never useful, but they should only be used with awareness of the limitations and would be a terrible thing to use as the only source of data for an actual science.prof wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:28 am In Appendix 1 of that treatise, the HVP - a powerful measuring instrument - is described. Since the time of that writing it has proven its accuracy and utility time and again, used by more than 100 counselors, around the planet, who administered it to over twenty thousand testees. Still and all, its inventors believed that the science that suggested it is of more-profound value than the measuring instrument. Among other qualities it measures Empathy. It also measures with some precision many of the "virtues" and "vices" discussed in modern Virtue Theory.
No.
That's a mess. Of course if people read sloppily they miss the point - the question is loaded that way.prof wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:28 am At times I have read sloppily, too cursorily, and thereby I missed the opportunity to understand what the writer was driving at. Do you agree that it is possible that one who on occasion fails to read carefully may have missed the point that Formal Value Theory [Formal Axiology] inquires as to the degree of attention and involvement a judge-of-value gives to what is being valued, and that this is what is being measured. {"Empathy" may be defined with rigor as (one application of) Intrinsic Value composed by Intrinsic Value. Do you believe that most Psychologists or Social Scientists have a rigorous definition of the term "empathy"?}
The theory is explicitly quantitative in claim (an attempt to make it look like a science), but qualitative by sleight of hand (claiming that one sort of property is more numerous than another based on subjectively derived importance). Not counting properties is how you achieve that sleight of hand because it is of course objectively absurd. I am less confident that you can grasp that point. You should be smart enough to, but you are obviously desperate not to address this issue.prof wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:28 am As it explains in the Science of Value entry in Wikipedia, it is not necessary, in practice, to count the properties in an item or individual considered to be of value. They are though sometimes mentioned in theory; for system purposes only.
I am confident to a high degree that you are able to grasp this simple point.
THIS IS A QUALITATIVE CLAIM (subjective):The amount of value, by definition and by observation, is based on the amount of properties
Page 17
Your whole argument is blatant sleight of hand.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:24 pm It's a shame you learned nothing ... potentially the basis of an objective science. But you are misusing that language and misdirecting a gullible audience.
In order to make some properties more infinite than the other infinite properties of any object, you are layering a load of subjective concerns throught the mechanism of attention.
you aren't really all that good.
THIS IS A QUANTITATIVE CLAIM (objective):THIS IS A QUALITATIVE CLAIM (subjective):The amount of value, by definition and by observation, is based on the amount of properties
Page 17Your whole argument is blatant sleight of hand.