Liam Bright

@lastpositivist < as of now seems unlikely to include ethics. Can what is tell us what ought to be?

@cathyby @lastpositivist Assumes (i) science can't study what ought to be; (ii) ethics isn't about what is (including facts about oughts).

@GuyLongworth @lastpositivist < possible future. It's pretty impossible to predict exactly what science will do thousands years hence.

@cathyby @lastpositivist Not sure I agree to precisely that restriction. Anyway, not clear that current ethics ≠ current science. #Trolling

@GuyLongworth I think science informs ethics. Don't know how science can provide the values. @lastpositivist

@cathyby @lastpositivist But I take it that part of the question at issue is whether science can directly study value. Why not? #Trolling

@GuyLongworth @cathyby @lastpositivist Because value is in the act of the agent (as more specifically beauty is in the eye of the beholder)!

@bowmanthebard @cathyby @lastpositivist Even if that were true-which it isn't-why can't science study what's "in the eye of the beholder"?