Science and Morality

[Eodnhoj7]

If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' based on PURE REASON is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

To verify and justify moral facts from within a moral framework and system we adopt scientific facts and other sources of knowledge.

Morality-proper in general is about being good and avoiding evil & violence.
As such there is no room for violence to be justified within a moral system.

[Skepdick]

If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.

You are seeing scientific progress as a pendulum, rather than an expanding bubble.

When a paradigm shift takes place the new paradigm still needs to account for the phenomena accounted for by the previous paradigm.

https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience ... fWrong.htm

[Belinda]

If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.

You are seeing scientific progress as a pendulum, rather than an expanding bubble.

When a paradigm shift takes place the new paradigm still needs to account for the phenomena accounted for by the previous paradigm.

https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience ... fWrong.htm

All 'moral systems' are man-made; and all too frequently the man who makes the moral system is a dictator.

Scientists mostly believe in ontic order, which they aim to get to know. However no respectable scientist is certain what she knows is true to ontic order.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' based on PURE REASON is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

To verify and justify moral facts from within a moral framework and system we adopt scientific facts and other sources of knowledge.

Morality-proper in general is about being good and avoiding evil & violence.
As such there is no room for violence to be justified within a moral system.

Morality in general is changing and any scientific basic for morality is subject to change as scientific facts are relative and eventually falsifiable.

[Eodnhoj7]

If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.

You are seeing scientific progress as a pendulum, rather than an expanding bubble.

When a paradigm shift takes place the new paradigm still needs to account for the phenomena accounted for by the previous paradigm.

https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience ... fWrong.htm

Expanding bubbles eventually pop.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' based on PURE REASON is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

To verify and justify moral facts from within a moral framework and system we adopt scientific facts and other sources of knowledge.

Morality-proper in general is about being good and avoiding evil & violence.
As such there is no room for violence to be justified within a moral system.

Morality in general is changing and any scientific basic for morality is subject to change as scientific facts are relative and eventually falsifiable.

Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' based on PURE REASON is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341

To verify and justify moral facts from within a moral framework and system we adopt scientific facts and other sources of knowledge.

Morality-proper in general is about being good and avoiding evil & violence.
As such there is no room for violence to be justified within a moral system.

Morality in general is changing and any scientific basic for morality is subject to change as scientific facts are relative and eventually falsifiable.

Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Moral facts based upon scientific conjectures makes morality a conjecture.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality in general is changing and any scientific basic for morality is subject to change as scientific facts are relative and eventually falsifiable.

Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Moral facts based upon scientific conjectures makes morality a conjecture.

• 1. Scientific facts/truth/knowledge from its FSK are highly polished conjectures.
  2. Moral facts from its FSK depend on inputs of scientific facts among others
  3. Moral facts are highly polished conjectures

So what?

Note my points with science stated in another thread;

• 1. Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
  2. Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.
  3. The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.
  4. The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Since the Moral FSK is very similar [not exactly], the above points 1-4 apply to moral facts.

[Eodnhoj7]

Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

Moral facts based upon scientific conjectures makes morality a conjecture.

• 1. Scientific facts/truth/knowledge from its FSK are highly polished conjectures.
  2. Moral facts from its FSK depend on inputs of scientific facts among others
  3. Moral facts are highly polished conjectures

So what?

Note my points with science stated in another thread;

• 1. Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
  2. Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.
  3. The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.
  4. The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Since the Moral FSK is very similar [not exactly], the above points 1-4 apply to moral facts.

If moral facts are at best conjectures this is not only an absolute statement, which is not a conjecture, but necessitates morality as perpetually incomplete thus open to further and further reinterpretation. This perpetual re defintion of morality will leave phenomenon, such as violence, eventually justifiable. Good and evil eventually become relative.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral facts based upon scientific conjectures makes morality a conjecture.

• 1. Scientific facts/truth/knowledge from its FSK are highly polished conjectures.
  2. Moral facts from its FSK depend on inputs of scientific facts among others
  3. Moral facts are highly polished conjectures

So what?

Note my points with science stated in another thread;

• 1. Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
  2. Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.
  3. The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.
  4. The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Since the Moral FSK is very similar [not exactly], the above points 1-4 apply to moral facts.

If moral facts are at best conjectures this is not only an absolute statement, which is not a conjecture, but necessitates morality as perpetually incomplete thus open to further and further reinterpretation. This perpetual re defintion of morality will leave phenomenon, such as violence, eventually justifiable. Good and evil eventually become relative.

Moral facts and scientific facts are both polished conjectures and thus relative not absolutely-absolute facts.

Re science, it is true, since science is incomplete, conditional and relative, change is a possibility.
do you think the scientific fact from the scientific FSK, e.g. that 'water is H20' will change.
Point is, the core scientific facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.

It is the same with moral facts where the basic moral facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.
E.g. the moral facts, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" or the one related to chattel slavery, are not likely to change, with 99.999..9% certainty it will not change leaving 0.000..1 possibility that it will change.

[Peter Holmes]

• 1. Scientific facts/truth/knowledge from its FSK are highly polished conjectures.
  2. Moral facts from its FSK depend on inputs of scientific facts among others
  3. Moral facts are highly polished conjectures

So what?

Note my points with science stated in another thread;

• 1. Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
  2. Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.
  3. The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.
  4. The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Since the Moral FSK is very similar [not exactly], the above points 1-4 apply to moral facts.

If moral facts are at best conjectures this is not only an absolute statement, which is not a conjecture, but necessitates morality as perpetually incomplete thus open to further and further reinterpretation. This perpetual re defintion of morality will leave phenomenon, such as violence, eventually justifiable. Good and evil eventually become relative.

Moral facts and scientific facts are both polished conjectures and thus relative not absolutely-absolute facts.

Re science, it is true, since science is incomplete, conditional and relative, change is a possibility.
do you think the scientific fact from the scientific FSK, e.g. that 'water is H20' will change.
Point is, the core scientific facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.

It is the same with moral facts where the basic moral facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.
E.g. the moral facts, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" or the one related to chattel slavery, are not likely to change, with 99.999..9% certainty it will not change leaving 0.000..1 possibility that it will change.

There are no moral facts, so they aren't polished moral conjectures. In what way is 'humans ought not to kill humans' a polished conjecture? And how could it turn out to be false? What new information could change that supposedly inductive conclusion? All nonsense.

[Skepdick]

There are no moral facts, so they aren't polished moral conjectures. In what way is 'humans ought not to kill humans' a polished conjecture? And how could it turn out to be false? What new information could change that supposedly inductive conclusion? All nonsense.

It's supported by 5000 years of case law.

Personally, I have two conditions for falsification.

1. Volunteer yourself for being killed.
2. Murder became permissible in law.

[Eodnhoj7]

• 1. Scientific facts/truth/knowledge from its FSK are highly polished conjectures.
  2. Moral facts from its FSK depend on inputs of scientific facts among others
  3. Moral facts are highly polished conjectures

So what?

Note my points with science stated in another thread;

• 1. Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.
  2. Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.
  3. The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.
  4. The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Since the Moral FSK is very similar [not exactly], the above points 1-4 apply to moral facts.

If moral facts are at best conjectures this is not only an absolute statement, which is not a conjecture, but necessitates morality as perpetually incomplete thus open to further and further reinterpretation. This perpetual re defintion of morality will leave phenomenon, such as violence, eventually justifiable. Good and evil eventually become relative.

Moral facts and scientific facts are both polished conjectures and thus relative not absolutely-absolute facts.

Re science, it is true, since science is incomplete, conditional and relative, change is a possibility.
do you think the scientific fact from the scientific FSK, e.g. that 'water is H20' will change.
Point is, the core scientific facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.

It is the same with moral facts where the basic moral facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.
E.g. the moral facts, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" or the one related to chattel slavery, are not likely to change, with 99.999..9% certainty it will not change leaving 0.000..1 possibility that it will change.

1. Give an example of a scientifically proven moral which was not first grounded in a religion or is not just a thought. Morality is not empirical, it is a concept.

2. Yet all phenomenon, as empty in themselves are subject to change. Water as H2O is a classification, classification is an interpretation, interpretation is group agreement thus group assumption.

3. .000...1 percent change eventually states what is improbable being actualized. A plane may crash x percent of the time thus necessitating the plane as crashing. A morality based upon probabilities not only subjects morality to chance but contradictory necessitates the foundations of probability as absolute thus necessitating absolute truth occuring for mathematics. How does one prove a morality exists 99 percent of the time?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If moral facts are at best conjectures this is not only an absolute statement, which is not a conjecture, but necessitates morality as perpetually incomplete thus open to further and further reinterpretation. This perpetual re defintion of morality will leave phenomenon, such as violence, eventually justifiable. Good and evil eventually become relative.

Moral facts and scientific facts are both polished conjectures and thus relative not absolutely-absolute facts.

Re science, it is true, since science is incomplete, conditional and relative, change is a possibility.
do you think the scientific fact from the scientific FSK, e.g. that 'water is H20' will change.
Point is, the core scientific facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.

It is the same with moral facts where the basic moral facts are not likely to change, while those at the fringes may change.
E.g. the moral facts, i.e. "no human ought to kill humans" or the one related to chattel slavery, are not likely to change, with 99.999..9% certainty it will not change leaving 0.000..1 possibility that it will change.

There are no moral facts, so they aren't polished moral conjectures. In what way is 'humans ought not to kill humans' a polished conjecture? And how could it turn out to be false? What new information could change that supposedly inductive conclusion? All nonsense.

Justified moral facts are dependent of scientific facts which are polished conjectures.
Therefore moral facts are polished conjectures.

Note there are MANY WAYS to verify and justify and reinforce moral facts as Justified True Moral Fact. So don't jump like a mad dog as if the example I bring below is the ONLY WAY.
Here is one crude way, i.e. using a survey of a critical mass of 'normal' people or where possible every human on earth.

The question is;
'No human ought to kill humans' True or False.

The above question should be accompanied with explanation to exclude conditional situations like self-defense, where it is legally permitted to kill which is political, thus not moral.

If 100% of the people surveyed answer 'True' then the proposition is true.
If 100% of the people surveyed answer 'False' then the proposition is False.

Based on the knowledge from the historical human database, I am confident the answer to the above is 100% will tick 'True', if not, it would be at least 95% will answer 'true' while 5% answer false.

The above survey is an indication of the existence of moral fact on an intuitive basis.

To reinforce the above we need to verify and justify the moral fact with other means of justifications, e.g. identifying the neural correlates, the psychological factors, etc.. BUT note, a moral fact to be justified within a Moral Framework and System.
Don't be blinded and ignored this,
the moral fact must be conditioned upon a moral framework and system.