"Can't get an ought from an is" is killing me

[thatsmrshem]

I know this is discussed more then its fair share, so I apologize in advance for bringing it up again

 

 

I have a gap in understanding when it comes to the "is ought" problem.

 

for instance, one of Stef's metaphors that he uses when explaining the "is ought" dichotomy is the scientific method.  he will say something along the lines of "There is nothing in reality that commands someone to use the scientific method, but that does not make the scientific method false or useless.  so you do not have to use the scientific method, but you can't claim to be scientific."

 

So if I understand correctly, no one has to use the scientific method, but if they don't, what ever conclusion they come too will be incorrect.  

 

so this is where my problem comes in.  What if someone wants their conclusions to be correct? wouldn't they have to use the scientific method for their conclusions to be correct? but isn't that saying: the scientific method is how we achieve truth, so you ought to use the scientific method if you want to be true?

 

in other words, an ought from an is?

 

or am I missing something here?

 

thanks in advance

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The fact that one ought to use the scientific method (in order for their conclusions to be correct) is conditional on one wanting their conclusions be correct. But the fact that this is conditional is not itself conditional.

[Guest darkskyabove]

In your quoted example notice that Stef did not say anything about being correct, he said that if you do not use the scientific method, you cannot claim to be scientific. Though it works very well, the scientific method is not the only way to find a correct answer. Sometimes logical deduction works. As Sherlock famously said, " Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." And there's always lucky guesses.

 

The "is-ought" problem can be fairly simple, though it is often overly complicated by people who have a hidden agenda. What we're dealing with is how do we take an "is" and construct an "ought" from that information.

 

Examples: It "is" (or, can be) lucrative to steal. Does that mean we "ought" to steal? It "is" possible to get away with murder. Does that mean we "ought" to kill those we don't like? There "is" an abundance of trees available to harvest. Does that mean we "ought" to chop them all down?

 

The problem is that none of the conclusions are sufficiently supported by the premise. Just because something is possible, does not make it a proper action.

 

Don't confuse methodology (how we try to solve a problem) with a conclusion. The scientific method is a methodology for finding solutions. It is not a conclusion about what we should do.

[ribuck]

in other words, an ought from an is?

 

What you describe is an "if ... ought". You can derive a conditional "ought" from an "is". However, you can't derive an unconditional "ought" from an "is".

 

"People who don't eat will starve"--> IF you don't want to starve, you OUGHT to eat (no logical problem)--> IF you want to starve, you OUGHT not to eat (no logical problem)--> You OUGHT to eat, and not starve (illogical)--> You OUGHT to not eat, and starve (illogical)

[brian0918]

Maybe this isn't the intended focus of your question, and if so, I apologize. But in case it is useful to you, here goes:

 

The way Rand puts it, you must first make the choice - whether explicitly or implicitly - to live. That basic choice is an amoral one. It is not until you have made that choice that you have set the condition for all future actions. "If I want to live, then I ought to do X, Y, Z."

 

The "is" in this case is a living organism, which must constantly act in a certain way to maintain its existence. For the organism to continue to be, it ought to act in a certain way.

 

There is no leap from "is" to "ought" for a rock, which cannot act and does not need to in order to maintain its existence, let alone the fact that it has no mental faculty with which to form concepts such as "is" or "ought".

 

This is why Rand says, "I am, therefore I'll think."

[LovePrevails]

I know this is discussed more then its fair share, so I apologize in advance for bringing it up again

 

 

I have a gap in understanding when it comes to the "is ought" problem.

 

for instance, one of Stef's metaphors that he uses when explaining the "is ought" dichotomy is the scientific method.  he will say something along the lines of "There is nothing in reality that commands someone to use the scientific method, but that does not make the scientific method false or useless.  so you do not have to use the scientific method, but you can't claim to be scientific."

 

So if I understand correctly, no one has to use the scientific method, but if they don't, what ever conclusion they come too will be incorrect.  

 

 

Right maybe this will help

 

You can't derive an ought from an is  without an if

 

so "if you want your conclusions to be correct, you ought to apply the scientific method, because it is the way of measuring whether hypotheses conform to reality" 

 

for example

[Hannibal]

Basically, human values are subjective - we choose them of our own free will. This means that you can never say that someone ought to do something, because something else is. Only that IF they hold a particular value as important to them and wish to act accordingly, then they ought to do that thing.

[thatsmrshem]

Thanks you so much guys, you really cleared this up for me.

 

Special thanks too ribuck and Loveprevails for differentiating between and "if.. ought" and "is..ought"

[Livemike]

I know this is discussed more then its fair share, so I apologize in advance for bringing it up again

 

 

I have a gap in understanding when it comes to the "is ought" problem.

 

for instance, one of Stef's metaphors that he uses when explaining the "is ought" dichotomy is the scientific method.  he will say something along the lines of "There is nothing in reality that commands someone to use the scientific method, but that does not make the scientific method false or useless.  so you do not have to use the scientific method, but you can't claim to be scientific."

 

So if I understand correctly, no one has to use the scientific method, but if they don't, what ever conclusion they come too will be incorrect.  

 

so this is where my problem comes in.  What if someone wants their conclusions to be correct? wouldn't they have to use the scientific method for their conclusions to be correct? but isn't that saying: the scientific method is how we achieve truth, so you ought to use the scientific method if you want to be true?

 

in other words, an ought from an is?

 

or am I missing something here?

 

thanks in advance

"So if I understand correctly, no one has to use the scientific method, but if they don't, what ever conclusion they come too will be incorrect.  "

No, you can't conclude that a conclusion will be incorrect simply because it's not arrived at by logic and evidence/ the scientific method.  For instance I could conclude that Dr. Rosenbaum is a better doctor than Dr. Price because I believe he is Jewish and a I believe Jewish doctors are best.  Your conclusion that he is the better doctor might be right, even though it's based on a false assumption (Jewish doctors are always best) or even two or three false assumptions (Dr. Rosenbaum is a Jew, Dr. Price is not).  What you can conclude is that there is _no reason to expect a conclusion to be true_ if it's not arrived at by reason and evidence.  

[Pepin]

In terms of not using the scientific method to arrive at a conclusion that can be correct, you are guessing because all of the variables you are taking into account are completely independent from the subject, meaning that the validity of your claim is just a function of probability and whatever reasoning involved is completely irrelevant. It is like if I use a random number generator to pick a number between 1 and 100, and you say that the number will be 59 because your age plus your brother's age is 59.

[WorBlux]

Go to the source. David Hume's essay on the topic is helpful.  There is a fundamental or seemingly fundamental difference between descriptive statements. "the scientific method is how we achieve truth, so you ought to use the scientific method if you want to be true?" Is still a fundamentally descriptive statement, of how a value relates to a causal relationship.

[LovePrevails]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI56uydkAsQ[/media]

[Ahren]

You ought to be reasonable. We can objectively discern what is reasonable. There case closed.

[Frohicky1]

I take it you are being cheeky Ahren?

[Ahren]

If you say so.