“Scientism is a term generally used to describe the facile application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.” — Wikipedia
-
-
Especially: "This does not mean that empirical contributions to the ethical practise of science are not valuable, but that scientific inquiry is governed by philosophical and ethical notions and not the other way round."
-
These are the important things that are stumbling blocks for hardcore scientismists.
-
So yes, empirical, i.e., scientific, facts are very useful for making decisions but the moral code generating the decisions is not science.
-
Here’s a relevant piece by
@briandavidearp against Sam Harris’s claim that science can tell us about what’s right or wrong: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/11/sam-harris-is-wrong-about-science-and-morality/ … -
IMO science can explain the processes of making moral decisions but morality itself it cannot, at least in its current form
-
Exactly. If you are researching the best way to save lives, you are researching how to enact a moral principle based on your own moral code. That is: saving lives is worth doing.
-
Science can tell you so much about how to do it but it cannot be used to back up why.
-
Here's a depressing example from my TL. Science cannot tell us (who) to kill or not kill. It's the moral code (and law) that needs to be changed, certainly not more empirical data gathered.https://twitter.com/hardsci/status/956597828616298496 …
- 12 more replies
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.