I don't think so. It can be true that some things are found meaningful, obv. But those things may or may not be based in truth. There are right & wrong answers to things. A truth claim is true, false, partially true or unknown. https://twitter.com/ComplaintStick/status/1000871751218221056 …
That's why I said it could be both. Where the claim is objective, it can be measured. Where it is subjective, it can't. "How should I live' can have a subjective element - I should be a writer - and an objective claim - by following the doctrines of the Catholic church.
-
-
Well, no. That was a bad example too. It depends what you're measuring against. The subjective would be the individual finding their lives enriched or not by either of those things. The objective could look at earning money, impact on human rights issues etc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
How should I live in this tribe? Should I make or use arrows? If so, how? Myths are relevant precisely because they are ways of knowing answers to such questions. In that sense, the myth IS evidence, and the knowledge provided is real, that is, true. But it's not scientific.
-
If it provides evidence of how to make arrows and whether this is a good idea - eg like gun stats showing you're four times more likely to be killed by one if you own one - and what ways of living in tribes work best, it is scientific. If it doesn't, it isn't.
-
Then your definition of "scientific" is something that includes knowledge that exists prior to the invention of science, doesn't it?
-
Is there a prior to the invention of science? Humans have been testing things and using the evidence provided for as long as we existed. 'Scire' - to know as a fact. However, we can also apply science to very old data. Not sure what the relevance of this tweet is.
-
It doesn't matter much whether there was a word for making a decision based on evidence - I won't eat that because it makes people sick - or based on myth - I won't eat that because God says it is unclean, truth claims are involved. The former cld be true. The latter unlikely.
-
OK so there's a myth one of whose lessons is: don't eat this thing because you will become sick. Is that myth telling you something meaningful or something true?
-
We could not know if it was true without testing it. For the Hare Krishnas it is onions and garlic. For the ancient Hebrews, it was pork & shellfish. The former seems groundless. The latter can now be understood in relation to food poisoning & dealt with via refrigeration.
-
People may or may not find dietary restrictions meaningful and this could relate to where they fall on the moral foundations - if they have strong sanctity/degradation intuitions, they could be more inclined to favor these rules regardless of evidence.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.