On the relationship between Philosophy and Science

[prof]

ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN – AND THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF - PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE
What I mean by "science” when I use the word is this: The scientists note a collection of data lacking order - just a jumble of data. They devise a frame-of-reference capable of making sense of that data; and they agree on standards of interpretation (also referred to as “bridge laws.”)

The frame-of-reference when applied to the unordered data explains and orders the data [and if a time-factor is introduced, predicts what will, or is likely to occur.] Then, when these components are present, and when one employs scientific methods, and shares results transparently, one is engaged in a science.

For ethics, Moral Psychology [also known as the Science of the Moral Sense] supplies the experimental data. Ethics will eventually be understood as a serious research discipline and as a knowledge resource. The Science of Moral Sense can test the hypotheses which the new perspective for Ethics produces. That perspective is one of the major topics of discussion in the present essay. Does Ethics – as a research discipline - have data? Yes, it does.

Ethical data are good deeds; incidents of kindness; cases of harmonious cooperation toward a constructive end-in-view; as well as specific examples of corruption, violence, abuse, exploitation, selfish manipulation of others, etc.

The new paradigm for Ethics suggested here will show a pattern where there was none before. Random concepts will now fit together into an ordered network. Values and value-judgments often provide us with information about the conscious human beings making those assessments and judgments. In this sense, values are facts. And science is helpful when it comes to facts.
While philosophy reflects, muses, and asks questions, science supplies some answers. And in doing so it always raises more questions, more topics for research. Philosophy grapples with “Why” questions; science deals with the What? and with the How? Science provides us with what works.

[prof]

Robert S. Hartman, in his book, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE, has defined “Philosophy” as: “‘the continuous clarification and analysis of ague concepts.” As philosophy is done successfully concepts become sharper, less vague or ambiguous, clearer, more exact and more precise. One way this is achieved is by defining one’s terms. As a result communication is facilitated and greater understanding occurs.

If one traces the history of ideas, one learns how Philosophy is the "Mother of the sciences." Philosophy of Mind became the Science of Psychology; Astrology became Astronomy and Cosmology; Natural Philosophy became Physics; the philosophical ideas named "Politics" became Political Science. Cultural philosophy became Anthropology which later became part of the discipline Sociology. The philosophy of curing became the Science of Medicine today with its various branches: Anatomy; Physiology; Ophthalmology; Neurology; etc. So we see that before there was science there was philosophy as its precursor. The sciences were generated by Philosophy.

In the late 15th century the idea that light beams would have anything to do with Euclidean geometry struck many persons as "absurd"! Yet later Newton showed that a straight line (a notion in that geometry) would best explain the data. In the same way the frame-of-reference of any science gives a meaning to its terms that often do not coincide with ordinary usage of the same term. In spite of that the terms in the scientific theory when related to the other terms of the system serve to best explain the formerly-unordered data. So a science matches up a framework with a chaos of data thereby ordering and explaining that data.

The same is true of Ethics. It takes notions such as: altruism, philanthropy, empathy, compassion, kindness, cooperation, harmony of interrelations, reciprocity, win/win outcomes, moral principles, prescriptive imperatives, integrity, guidelines to success, freedom, happiness, conscience, hypocrisy, guilt, greed, caring, pleasure, consideration, satisfaction, love, war, corruption, joy, etc., etc., and relates them all (to each other) in a meaningful way; thereby making order out of chaos. Science provides a pattern where there was none before.

[prof]

.....continuing the reasoning........

Then the designers and engineers can come along and create technologies that make life run smoother,' grease the wheels' so to speak; they make our lives more comfortable, less tense, more secure, less quarrelsome, increase our capacities. Examples are the printing press, the jury system, the mediation services, new and improved approaches to therapy and to life-counseling, placement services, matchmaking services, universal-basic-income experiments, or especially wealth-generating and wealth-sharing funds such as they have in Alaska, U.S.A., etc. This comprises Applied Ethics at its best.

Eventually Moral Philosophy can transition into ethical science. Ethics will take its place alongside Physics. This will occur as the terms of Ethics are made more precise, well-defined, and related to each other as parts of a rigorous frame-of-reference; and as more experimental findings are shared. The ethical theory presented in these pages is the initial stage of this process of working out a frame-of-reference.

The good news is that Ethics now has a reproducible methodology: the administration of tests to determine how the test-taker thinks about values, and what general conclusions can be drawn when this test is administered to thousands of counselees. The test is scored objectively by standard statistical methods. It has been validated many times, and is listed in Boru’s Manual of established tests.

Many moral philosophers today, influenced by Prof. Kant’s reasoning, agree on the moral imperative: Do no harm. Living up to this principle in daily life includes refraining from psychological abuse-such as name-calling; and from committing violence; and from participating in a war.

Comments?

[Necromancer]

...when one employs scientific methods...

Well written OP.

The Scientific Methods are generally two: one for experimental science and another for discovery, let's say telescopes for astronomy or describing the plants and animals of planet Earth.

However, I would like to note the use of legal science, including the practice of the police in order to make the moral conduct "rewarding" or just the very correct one.

Thus, I leave it to the general public to live out the one evidently good ethical system (as there is no other working ethical system) of Kantianism!

So: Kantian Deontology and democratic laws and regulations should make the normal, good life in the future toward Utopia, that may indeed be not too far off!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_ ... cal_Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontolog ... Kantianism
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/law-abiding

[Eodnhoj7]

.....continuing the reasoning........

Then the designers and engineers can come along and create technologies that make life run smoother,' grease the wheels' so to speak; they make our lives more comfortable, less tense, more secure, less quarrelsome, increase our capacities. Examples are the printing press, the jury system

, the mediation services, new and improved approaches to therapy and to life-counseling, placement services, matchmaking services, universal-basic-income experiments, or especially wealth-generating and wealth-sharing funds such as they have in Alaska, U.S.A., etc. This comprises Applied Ethics at its best.

How does it run smoother when progress, as a continual elimination of the present for future, requires a dissatisfaction with the now? If we look at the state of the world, with the increase in technology, an increase in the following as occurs:

1) Health problems related to skeletal musculur injuries do to weakness cause by physical "ease". Diabetes, weight problems, heart problems, etc. by diet that is poor but affordable: I.e Mcdonalds or the Coke over water shortage in Mexico.

Add in the mental anguish do to social isolation the modern youth feels, along with sexual dysfunctions by a continual rain of pornographic material

2) Less Tense? Two world wars, a holocaust, holodimir (another eastern holocause by stalin), the cold war, continual threat of terrorism always broadcast by social media, etc. over the past 100 years correlating with the increase in industry and technology. The world has become noisier.

3) Quarrelsome...seriously....stand social media proves the point.

4) "Capacities for what exactly?" This is dependent on the linear nature of progress that deems everything futile in use to a process of perpetual change that does not change anything except one's "coffee options". Portions of the rainforest have been wiped out strictly for the wood to be used as toothpicks, coffee stirrers, chopsticks, etc.

If anything, technological progress as turn man into a sterile self-preening animal which will self-destruct do to its own vanity.



Eventually Moral Philosophy can transition into ethical science. Ethics will take its place alongside Physics. This will occur as the terms of Ethics are made more precise, well-defined, and related to each other as parts of a rigorous frame-of-reference; and as more experimental findings are shared. The ethical theory presented in these pages is the initial stage of this process of working out a frame-of-reference.

Ethics can be observed from strictly spatial terms considering the universal axioms of man, regardless of the culture, stem to the simple point and line. From these premises, we can observe mathematically and logically the premises of moral codes such as the "Golden Rule" that observes a law of balance and reciprocation that manifests itself across time and space.

The good news is that Ethics now has a reproducible methodology: the administration of tests to determine how the test-taker thinks about values, and what general conclusions can be drawn when this test is administered to thousands of counselees. The test is scored objectively by standard statistical methods. It has been validated many times, and is listed in Boru’s Manual of established tests.

If the test is premised in probability, then by default the methodology is probabilistic. In these respects it eventually must be considered unethical by its own standards and is contradictory on its own terms. The "administration of tests" give the appearance of a morality dependent of group think reminiscent of Neitszche. In these terms would it not be more moral if I rose above these groups to overthrow them? Or fail in the process? Either way, because groups are strictly and exhibition of force, under these terms would I not be morally required to provide force against them?

How is the test scored objectively when the standards themselves are the products of a group of people? What mathematical foundations, or logical one's do you provide other than a statistical analysis, which by default must allow for opposing variables to exist?


Many moral philosophers today, influenced by Prof. Kant’s reasoning, agree on the moral imperative: Do no harm. Living up to this principle in daily life includes refraining from psychological abuse-such as name-calling; and from committing violence; and from participating in a war.

Sterilizing a population intellecutually, emotionally, or even physically does harm against that population in the long term as they cannot extend across time space. How are these moral virtues to be obtained except through a show of force which contradicts them?

Force is relative to the user and the reciever, how can a disagreement eventually not be equivalent to a form of abuse if the recipient views it as such?

Comments?

[prof]

...when one employs scientific methods...

Well written OP.

The Scientific Methods are generally two: one for experimental science and another for discovery, let's say telescopes for astronomy or describing the plants and animals of planet Earth.

... I leave it to the general public to live out the one evidently good ethical system (as there is no other working ethical system) of Kantianism!

So: Kantian Deontology and democratic laws and regulations ...

Thanks for the kind words about the initial post, Necromancer.
Yes, I too would consider Taxonomy of flora and fauna to be science, in a sense.

I'd like to propose another ethical system that works - when tried. It incorporates Deontology, along with Consequentialism, and Virtue Theory as well. It is a synthesis of those schools of thought; and it also absorbs within it Buddhist ethics, Shinto ethics, and variants to the ethics of Confuscious. As shown on pp. 66-68 of the fourth document listed below, it is capable of deriving The Golden Rule. Hence it fits in with tradition. Here are some links to parts of it:

http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICS ... CIENCE.pdf

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf

Finally, a much-briefer paper to read is this one:
SUCCESSFUL LIVING: How to have a quality life (2016)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/Su ... 20life.pdf


Comments? Reviews? Questions?

[prof]

....Continuing the theme of the thread:......

The “Do no harm!” imperative has lots of implications for the setting of policy. Torture, of course, is then out of the question; While violence is ruled out, force is morally permissible according to the findings of the ethical scientists. The scientists in the field of Ethics make a distinction here between the two concepts, FORCE and VIOLENCE:

Do you know the difference between "force" and "violence"? To restrain someone you are rescuing from drowning who is behaving in a panicky manner is an example of the use of force. The rescuer subdues the struggling drowning person in order to bring the drowning person to shore, to safety. The rescue is made in a context of a commitment to create value in that situation, that is to say, the rescuer cares about the quality of life of the person who may be rescued, as well as he cares about his own self-interest. He or she does not want to experience the destruction of value that would occur if a life is lost. In contrast, one who commits violence usually does not value Intrinsically the individual who is the recipient of that violence. That failure is, of course, an ethical mistake.

As the project to advance the new science makes progress, and as the findings get reported, people will come to see how everything you know about ethics fits together and is explained and ordered by the new paradigm. The reader will comprehend and understand how and why Ethics is an empirical science with replicable experiments and the use of scientific methods of research.

The theoretical framework offered in those writings listed at the end of my previous post is responsive to an ever-changing moral climate and is capable of transcending many contemporary mores. Every proposition in science is highly-tentative, subject to revision when better models some along.

Scientists usually Intrinsically-value their theories, see beauty in their models, and (due to their personal tastes) select the area in which they choose to do research ...all of which are instances of Intrinsic valuation. [abbreviated as “I-value.”] They compose the value, i.e., upgrade the value, of the mere mental conceptions by Intrinsically-valuing them This is a case of value composition. All this will become quite clear as you peruse with care the documents cited
earlier in the recent post above.

After one studies those papers and booklets, if one has questions, feel free to ask, and I will do my best to give a helpful response, for I am the author presenting the new paradigm for understanding - and for practicing - ethics. Useful knowledge is being offered in those manuscripts; knowledge that when one takes it seriously and lives it, one has a life of higher quality and peace of mind.

Critiques? Evaluations? Discussion? Reviews?

[Eodnhoj7]

....Continuing the theme of the thread:......

The “Do no harm!” imperative has lots of implications for the setting of policy. Torture, of course, is then out of the question; While violence is ruled out, force is morally permissible according to the findings of the ethical scientists. The scientists in the field of Ethics make a distinction here between the two concepts, FORCE and VIOLENCE:


You may seperate the two, as much as you wish, but the problem occurs in regards the symmetry between them which in effect binds them:


Force: coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=force+defi ... 6C639D6E3B

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=violence+d ... BF0D46AC35



How is eliminating the human potential through the creation of technology which eliminates the human factor not, in itself, a form of force and violence? One aspect of philosophy, such as ignoring the counter-argument of another, only justifies the counter-argument.

Do you know the difference between "force" and "violence"? To restrain someone you are rescuing from drowning who is behaving in a panicky manner is an example of the use of force. The rescuer subdues the struggling drowning person in order to bring the drowning person to shore, to safety.

In these respects, you set a prerequisite for the use of force as an exertion upon a person who appears not to contain full rational faculties. If people panick do to a loss of jobs, caused by technological progress or the institutionalization of new moral system, is police force morally required against those same individuals. What seperates institutionalize dogma of what reason is, versus the reasoning methods of individual groups?

If a faith based group, disagrees with the findings of a scientific field, are they considered irrational and moral force is required to exterminate their opinions.

Destruction of purpose and place is also an exhibition of force and violence that leads to further force and violence. We can observe this in industrialized and industrializing societies, such as coal mining operations in west virginia or specific skill sets third world countries rely upon, where a person's work environment is eliminated through corporate technological progress. In turn these people have to resort to skillsets that place them against their fellow neighbor, ie stealing, warfare, etc.

The rescue is made in a context of a commitment to create value in that situation, that is to say, the rescuer cares about the quality of life of the person who may be rescued, as well as he cares about his own self-interest. He or she does not want to experience the destruction of value that would occur if a life is lost. In contrast, one who commits violence usually does not value Intrinsically the individual who is the recipient of that violence. That failure is, of course, an ethical mistake.
What about self-defense resulting in the death of another? Is that force or violence?


As the project to advance the new science makes progress, and as the findings get reported, people will come to see how everything you know about ethics fits together and is explained and ordered by the new paradigm.
What ethical standards is science really held by considering the moral median, from which they judge, is their own individual progress? The scientific community, by its own rational, does not share the same ethical systems as the populace they seek to "progress" past.

The reader will comprehend and understand how and why Ethics is an empirical science with replicable experiments and the use of scientific methods of research.

How is ethics a a constant science through a strict empirical approach, when the prerequisite for all empirical observations is one of "approximation". Empiricism is rooted in the change of sensory experience with no foundation for itself to reflect against. Many of the standards for empirical observations are rooted in measurement systems of abstract mathematics or even geometry...would those not provide more suitable foundations?

The theoretical framework offered in those writings listed at the end of my previous post is responsive to an ever-changing moral climate and is capable of transcending many contemporary mores. Every proposition in science is highly-tentative, subject to revision when better models some along.
Hence the moral and ethical code is due to a constant change, which by default eradicates the very "foundations" it seeks to maintain a consistency in.

Scientists usually Intrinsically-value their theories, see beauty in their models, and (due to their personal tastes) select the area in which they choose to do research ...all of which are instances of Intrinsic valuation.
Hence objective morality is strictly the projection of a subjective model. What happens when one subjective model, contradicts another, as evidenced previously with the "coal miner" example? How can you seperate your own objective judgement, on a theory, in which you deem it valid because "you" see beauty in it?

Would this not contradict or moral standard calculated and derived from artificial intelligence?

[abbreviated as “I-value.”] They compose the value, i.e., upgrade the value, of the mere mental conceptions by Intrinsically-valuing them This is a case of value composition. All this will become quite clear as you peruse with care the documents cited
earlier in the recent post above.
What is the objective model for value that is strictly quantifiable?

After one studies those papers and booklets, if one has questions, feel free to ask, and I will do my best to give a helpful response, for I am the author presenting the new paradigm for understanding - and for practicing - ethics. Useful knowledge is being offered in those manuscripts; knowledge that when one takes it seriously and lives it, one has a life of higher quality and peace of mind.
Provide a measurement standard that can be universalized mathematically/logicall other than statistical evidence which by default is subject to change.


Critiques? Evaluations? Discussion? Reviews?
Considering you cannot answer, nor give a retort to the previously stated questions, is it really science you offer or just a blind eye? If one cannot either face, or bring order to, the objection of another what differs your statements from subjective dogma?

If I make an aggressive counter statement, and you do not respond, then by default are you acting immoral considering you allow such perspectives to "exist" and form the foundations for an opposing moral system? Or

11
A S
UMMARY OF SOME OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES
1)
Honor and respect every individual.
If my moral system requires the progession against current boundaries, and this is how I honor both myself and others, if I do not push a person out of their comfort zone am I immoral? Where does comfort and harm seperate, considering many place comfort as a moral necessity in some degree or another?


2)Everyone is doing the best one knows how. If we knew any better we would do better. It’s mainly due to
ignorance why we behave badly.
And people do not choose to ignore "learning". If I choose not to learn more, and my actions are based upon ignorance, which allows a degree of justification in "innocence", can I do what I want if I decide not to learn more?


3) We are all in this together. We’re all just trying to make a life.
If we are all in this together, as equals, what gives one man the moral obligation to tell another what is moral and immoral? Is force what unifies us?



4) Work for mutually beneficial relationships. Whatreally helps you, helps me; and vice versa.
But what if the value systems differ, do to a premise of necessary subjective interpretation, how does one know when the are really helping another or exhibiting force over them?


5) Strive for excellence in performance! Aim to be a good person, one who values deeply yourself and others.
How can one excel in performance, when the performance of the mind, body and spirit, deemed unneccessary in the progress of technological development?

6) Be authentic! Don’t be a phony; be true to your true self.
I am being authentic, but does the negligence of my questions equate to a form of violence in itself? I want answers and need answers, otherwise I will not be able to fully behave rationally (ie "moral/ethical"). If I am neglected, am I morally required to apply force?

7) In every situation in life the central question to ask yourself is:What action can I take here and now to create the greatest all around
value?
And what is this "value" other then do no harm? If I seed must die, in order to be birthed as a flower or vine, what seperates harm from growth?


Provide everyone the full opportunity to express their creativity.
What happens when one's creativity clashes with another?

9 ) Empower the individual to express more of his full potential.
Who determines what that potential is? The individual or the person expressing force over the other individual?

10) Look to creative design to solve problems.
If I build a sandcastle and I deem that sandcastle as blocking the progress of a new sandcastle I am about to build, but I destroy it because it is in the way, am I being immoral for eradicating its existence relative to a greater existence?



11) Be consistent: Do not have double standards, one for yourself, and others for other people.
What happens when the values of one clash with the other, considering consistency and originality must both be preserved?


12) : Include as many as possible into your in group widen your moral compass be inclusive.
What happens when one disagrees with the other? Is not the synthesis of a morality dependent upon opposition? But does not opposition contradict the "do no harm" principality to some degree?

13)) Help those in need.
What accountability, or force will be exercised against me, if I decide that their needs do not correspond with my values?

14) Be honest. Don’t deceive others or “put them on” just for fun. Don’t toy with people.
What if my honesty is percieved as "toying" with someone else, when according to my value system I am strictly trying to bring out their potential?


15) Be lawful: Do not violate the law unless it is a bad law, one that violates human dignity by contradicting one of these principles.
What happens when a group's value system changes and these principles are no longer of value? Are these principle's set up to eventually cancel themselves out over time?


16) Recognize the individual’s right to be autonomous. Acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical
body.
What if it contradicts another's value system? If we are all in this together, as observed by law 3, what seperates the individual from the group.

17) Be aware of the justice principle: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair
distribution of benefits.
Who deem's what is fair? Will it be AI, if so does it contradict qualitative values by quantifying them? What if an AI system contradicts the perceive values of another? Or if people do not want to be ruled by an AI? Is this not violence to force them to go against thier individual autonomy and values?


18) Acknowledge a person’s rights among which is a right to life, to information, privacy, frees expression, and safety
Who, or what determines these rights?

Does life begin at "x" and end at "y" or is it "a" and "b"? Is full transparency of information required in matters of security?

Does predictive programming algorithms violate privacy by stating the future of an individual?

What if free expression claims the morality authority must be questioned, causing the moral authority to be changed, does that moral authority have to listen to the values of the group or seek its own survival and exhibit force/violence?

What constitutes safety exactly if a person is required to extend past their ego and look out for group interests? If a person is self-centered and disagrees with the group, is "intellectual" or "emotional" safety threatened? What differs those forms of safety from "physical" safety? Does one have a priority over the other?



I

[Lurendrejer]

Is it a fair metaphor to think of science as a vehicle and philosophy as Its fuel, needed for movement - and so, depending on the quality of the fuel relative to the vehicle, some things are better/more suited than others?