Non-Arguments

[labmath2]

I have seen a few instances of a statement similar to this: Moral philosophy is not like physical science, it is more like biological science. This is not an argument. A better answer would be to say, this area still needs clarification but it does not render the main theory false.

 

If anyone else has seen any non argument feel free to point them out.

 

PS. Physical science also has moments when they are just as imprecise (Pluto was finally changed to dwarf planet when they discovered it was not the only body that displayed those eccentric characteristics). 

[Kevin Beal]

I have seen a few instances of a statement similar to this: Moral philosophy is not like physical science, it is more like biological science. This is not an argument. A better answer would be to say, this area still needs clarification but it does not render the main theory false.

That's not the argument that was provided, but rather the conclusion of the argument. And it's "physics", not "physical science". (Biology is a physical science, obviously).

 

The reason this analogy is made is given throughout the book as the framework is being demonstrated. It's made to help people understand what standard of proof can and should be expected from a theory on ethics.

 

Below are some examples:

 

 

 

Learning the truth requires that we see the world from outside our senses – this does not mean a rejection of our senses, but an airtight compliance with the real evidence of the senses, which is not that the world is flat, but that matter, energy and physical laws are consistent. When we let go of a rock in our hand, it falls – this is the real evidence of the senses, not that the Earth is fixed and immovable. The idea that the world is immobile is an incorrect assumption that contradicts the direct evidence of our senses, which is that everything falls. If everything falls, the world cannot be fixed and immovable.

 

These are the little truths of the everyday; that rocks fall, smoke rises, fire is hot and the sun and the moon are both round. If we remain steadfastly and rigorously committed to these “little truths,” we can in time derive the great truths of physics, which provide us such awesome knowledge and power.

 

In between the little truths and the great truths, however, are the illusions that blind us – both in physics and in ethics.

 

In physics, the great truths cannot contradict the little truths. No “unified field theory” can validly contradict our direct sense-experience of a falling rock or a rising flame. The greatest mathematical theory cannot be valid if applying it returns incorrect change at the checkout counter.

Historically, however, in between our own little truths and the great truths lies what I will call the “null zone.”

 

 

 

Truth also has value relative to necessity as well. Newtonian physics has been supplanted by Einsteinian physics, which has proven far more accurate in extreme situations such as extraordinarily high gravity or speed. However, sailors wishing to calculate the correct path across an ocean find Newtonian physics more than accurate enough. You wouldn’t want to send a spaceship to Alpha Centauri using Newtonian physics, but it is totally fine for getting a ship from Lisbon to New York. The labour involved in learning and implementing Einsteinian physics is thus a net negative for a sailor.

 

As a result, the sentence “Newtonian physics is less accurate than Einsteinian physics, but Newtonian physics is the best way to calculate a ship’s path” can be considered a valid proposition. Newtonian physics is thus both less accurate, and more appropriate.

 

 

 

Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics – which does not mean that moral laws are false, subjective or irrelevant. The scientific method itself does not exist in reality either – and is also optional – but it is not at all false, subjective or irrelevant.

 

Page 77 has a table of how to compare physics, biology and morality in terms of Instance, Sample Rule, Sample Theory, Sample Classification, Hypothesis, Proof and Negative Proof Example. (I would copy and paste if I could).

 

The whole book UPB carries this metaphor of biology vs physics from beginning to end of the book. It's hard to imagine that you could have read the book and dismissed the claim that UPB is more akin to biology than physics as a non-argument. Maybe you should re-read it.

[cynicist]

What's your point?

[labmath2]

That's not the argument that was provided, but rather the conclusion of the argument. And it's "physics", not "physical science". (Biology is a physical science, obviously).

 

The reason this analogy is made is given throughout the book as the framework is being demonstrated. It's made to help people understand what standard of proof can and should be expected from a theory on ethics.

 

The similarity he attempts to use, the way i understand it, is true in chemistry, biology and physics. The nature of studying things is that you will come across some that have similar traits. This is why you have multiple levels of classification (groupings which describe certain fundamental natures of the things in the category, e.g particle vs wave, vertebrate vs invertebrate). Not only do these distinctions exist, but you have subcategories and super-categories. which are all based on predefined (descriptive) features of the things in the category. To have the same rigor in philosophy, one only need to describe the categories, based on some predefined (descriptive) feature common to all those within the category. A 2 headed horse has all the qualities of a horse with an additional head. Does that mean its not a horse, it depends, is it a lone horse (the only one with 2 heads in its group) or part of a community of 2 headed horses. If its a lone horse creating a new category is unnecessary as it is merely an anomaly. With philosophy, there exists only two categories, immoral or not immoral (correct me if i am wrong). The two headed horse (sticking with the example) equivalence would be a unique event that is similar to another but with an anomaly. to describe a common event in terms of such comparison is not an argument.

 

The table uses good/evil. The problem with the comparison lies in the sample classification in the table. Mater/energy or reptile/mammal describe a feature of the thing , good/evil must also be descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) to be considered scientifically valid. What quality (observable) of a thing deems it good, what quality deems it evil? If good is compatible with UPb and evil is incompatible, then the grey area is inconclusive, no need to fog with the "philosophy is like biology as opposed to physics" line.

What's your point?

 

That argument (statement) fogs the logic. One can merely state that the thing is neither compatible nor incompatible with UPB.

[J. D. Stembal]

There's an easy counter for the "philosophy is not like hard science" gambit. Tell them that philosophy is roughly 2500 years older than the scientific method, so to discount it so easily without presenting any evidence does philosophy a disservice. There will be no real arguments presented along with this gambit, just a conclusion that there can be nothing more legitimate than the physical sciences. Economics, sociology, and philosophy - the soft sciences - often get smeared in intellectual discussions for supposedly not being subjected to the same rigors as the hard sciences - mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology.

[cynicist]

Edit: There was a response here, but it has gone into hiding.

[Kevin Beal]

Wait a minute. Did you just move the goalpost?

 

You said that it was a non-argument, I pointed out that it really was an argument, and then you did not comment on the fact that it was an argument, and instead focused on a point that I do not understand the relevance of.

 

Is there an argument there or is there not? If there is, can you please concede the point?

[labmath2]

Wait a minute. Did you just move the goalpost?

 

You said that it was a non-argument, I pointed out that it really was an argument, and then you did not comment on the fact that it was an argument, and instead focused on a point that I do not understand the relevance of.

 

Is there an argument there or is there not? If there is, can you please concede the point?

I see no actual argument in the entire quote blocks. Those are merely stating things that are true. An argument needs a series of connected statements that follow from one another to produce a conclusion that might not be obvious. All three quote blocks are descriptive, not arguments. I would appreciate it if you would point out the arguments because i seem to have missed it.