UPB, objective?

[bugzysegal]

Part 1_ on words: Fair enough. Completely useless in practice.

 

Part 2_ on that: Are you certain that uncertainty is better than certainty?

Part 1. Well not really. It eliminates a lot of epistemology problems like "what is truth?", but it also leads us away from philosophy in general. 

Part 2. No, but certainty is comforting, therefore allowing for uncertainty is brave.

[Kevin Beal]

(also if that is not what you meant not only will I edit in an apology, but I'll announce to the world that I was being an oversensitive dick)

I said "nevermind" because I broke the rules of the forums by saying what I said, so I attempted to erase any evidence of it.

 

But yes, clearly I think it was a waste of time.

 

I really don't care if you think I'm a snob or an idiot, or hypocrite or whatever. Please, broadcast it to the world if that's what you think. I want people to know you think that of me.

[Will Torbald]

Part 1. Well not really. It eliminates a lot of epistemology problems like "what is truth?", but it also leads us away from philosophy in general. 

Part 2. No, but certainty is comforting, therefore allowing for uncertainty is brave.

 

It's not brave to say "there might be cookies in the empty cookie jar" just because you want to save face.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 If it doesn't at least make you scratch your chin, I'm sorry. Penn Gillette said that "I know in my heart I could be wrong about Libertarianism." It's that kind of brazen uncertainty that I respect.

 Penn has an objective standard by which he could be wrong. What's yours?

[bugzysegal]

 Penn has an objective standard by which he could be wrong. What's yours?

 Did you know that we agree in a very relevant sense? So, when I speak, I commit myself to certain beliefs. Among those beliefs is that I am using my words to share experience with other minds.  The very act of speaking declares that Cartesian certainty "I think, therefore I am" to be way less than what we can be certain of by linguistic acts. I think you would go further in saying that it requires that I use objective standards(but let's not go there quite yet).The very exercise of Descartes' Meditations becomes ludicrous when viewed from the standpoint that meaning only exists in use and this use necessitates context. Descartes starts by doubting everything. The only problem is this is unintelligible. Can you doubt that everything exists? No of course not. You can't even begin to imagine a concept of "nothing" that makes any sense outside of some material context. "Doubt" is not something that can exist in a vacuum. It needs context, as does math or any other language. So there is some obvious initial evidence for the usefulness of contextual thinking. However, what about those pesky "objective standards" required to judge things by.  Well there are ways to play different language games so that we say you are in fact playing that game. Some language games are similar to one another.  Others barely resemble each other. "Going" and "leaving" have strong resemblances to each other, but it would seem like "brick" and "beautiful" are quite dissimilar. Each game plays by certain rules. If someone stepped up to a baseball home plate and after the pitch, they ran counter-clockwise around the bases, we wouldn't say they are objectively wrong. They simply aren't playing baseball.

It's not brave to say "there might be cookies in the empty cookie jar" just because you want to save face.

I'm not trying to save face. After surveying my own beleifs I've had to abandon many a notion that had previously provided the comfort of certainty. Giving up convenient and comforting beliefs is difficult. Therefore I respect it. It's not indiscriminate, but I hardly was implying anything like that.

I said "nevermind" because I broke the rules of the forums by saying what I said, so I attempted to erase any evidence of it.

 

But yes, clearly I think it was a waste of time.

 

I really don't care if you think I'm a snob or an idiot, or hypocrite or whatever. Please, broadcast it to the world if that's what you think. I want people to know you think that of me.

Just name one alternate philosophy you have devoted time to surveying in a rigorous mannner. Anything...Platonism, Aristotelian thought, Rationalism, Empiricism, Rational Empiricism, skepticism, Idealism, Deontology, Utilitarianism. When's the last time you put the effort into building you opponents view as strongly as you could before attacking it? Do you even see the value in such a practice? 

[Troubador]

Logic is a fantastic tool for formalising thought, and effectively communicating ideas, as long as everyone is using the same logic form. However I have always struggled with the idea that logic by itself produces or arrives at truth in isolation. I'm currently wading through Wittgenstien myself and I am often surprised how rarely I see his work come up here considering how much a benchmark his work was.

 

I am a long way from diving into quantum logic although I'd like to once my mathematics is strong enough, but if a form of logic fails to be able to accurately encompass the properties of systems that exist in reality we have to accept that form of logic whilst still useful as a tool has limitations. It seems to me people often use forms of logic interchangeably whereby they will communicate their ideas using informal logic, and decry challenges to the validity of their beliefs as nitpicking. Yet when they wish to take apart a view they don't like they switch to a more formal form and take apart the whole idea so it can be safely rejected.

 

Being able to challenge your own cherished beliefs and ideas is Central to the notion of moving thought forwards both as an individual and as a species. I like the idea of taking opposing views and making them as strong as possible when comparing them with your own, the very act of which will make you more knowledgeable and wiser. Although I can concede that approach may not not be the most efficient methodology. I guess it all comes down to how much time do you have, and your inclination.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 Did you know that we agree in a very relevant sense? So, when I speak, I commit myself to certain beliefs. Among those beliefs is that I am using my words to share experience with other minds.  The very act of speaking declares that Cartesian certainty "I think, therefore I am" to be way less than what we can be certain of by linguistic acts. I think you would go further in saying that it requires that I use objective standards(but let's not go there quite yet).The very exercise of Descartes' Meditations becomes ludicrous when viewed from the standpoint that meaning only exists in use and this use necessitates context. Descartes starts by doubting everything. The only problem is this is unintelligible. Can you doubt that everything exists? No of course not. You can't even begin to imagine a concept of "nothing" that makes any sense outside of some material context. "Doubt" is not something that can exist in a vacuum. It needs context, as does math or any other language. So there is some obvious initial evidence for the usefulness of contextual thinking. However, what about those pesky "objective standards" required to judge things by.  Well there are ways to play different language games so that we say you are in fact playing that game. Some language games are similar to one another.  Others barely resemble each other. "Going" and "leaving" have strong resemblances to each other, but it would seem like "brick" and "beautiful" are quite dissimilar. Each game plays by certain rules. If someone stepped up to a baseball home plate and after the pitch, they ran counter-clockwise around the bases, we wouldn't say they are objectively wrong. They simply aren't playing baseball.

I can't really follow all that. It seems to be about radical skepticism and language. You use UPB when you interact with people so these sorts of Cartesian insecurities and speculations are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if logic is, unbeknownst to us, all wrong and bricks are actually aardvark unicorns. You are either using an objective standard and holding others to that standard or you're not. If you are then logically you're using UPB (as such standard must be universal). If you are not then it's just subjective opinions and who cares? 

[Kevin Beal]

 Just name one alternate philosophy you have devoted time to surveying in a rigorous mannner. Anything...Platonism, Aristotelian thought, Rationalism, Empiricism, Rational Empiricism, skepticism, Idealism, Deontology, Utilitarianism. When's the last time you put the effort into building you opponents view as strongly as you could before attacking it? Do you even see the value in such a practice? 

Yes, I've spent close to a decade doing this, if you add all the different "philosophies" together that I examined rigorously and building up their cases as strongly as I could before "attacking" it. It was valuable to be able to have certainty about it, and be able to speak with some authority with people who believed those things. It also allowed me to speak simply about things instead of relying on jargon.

 

Trying to understand the jargon people used was a huge motivator for me to do this. I thought that they must be using big words because they understand things more fundamentally, but now I have certainty about this too.

 

People who rely on jargon to get a point across to people unfamiliar with their position are full of shit, every single time.

 

I have a great deal of experience with what you asked.

[bugzysegal]

I can't really follow all that. It seems to be about radical skepticism and language. You use UPB when you interact with people so these sorts of Cartesian insecurities and speculations are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if logic is, unbeknownst to us, all wrong and bricks are actually aardvark unicorns. You are either using an objective standard and holding others to that standard or you're not. If you are then logically you're using UPB (as such standard must be universal). If you are not then it's just subjective opinions and who cares? 

That was a bit meandering sorry. Ok so your objective standard is that of UPB correct? I want to highlight the fact that your pointing to the importance of practice and pragmatism. UPB outlines moral prescriptions about murder, property, aggression, etc. Great, but there are cases where UPB doesn't necessarily get the job done. So for example, should a doctor, who is offered her standard rate of pay for service by someone who requires immediate medical attention and has no other viable options at this time, be obligated to take this contract(this does happen). I believe a professor when having a discussion with Stefan brought up the example of a man hanging from a flagpole, who asks the Libertarian if he can break the window to save his own life.Stefan acknowledged that this was problematic though he dismissed it as not a general concern of everyday ethical reasoning. Many would argue that Libertarian theories suffer kinds of problems like these in not proscribing positive(meaning must act to do x) behavior. I would argue that the correct moral theory must be one that uses some shared point of reference, but that which moral theory (Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, etc.) applies is dictated by the situation.  While it's not evidence that this ought to be the way we behave, many people in fact do behave this way and I find that interesting. This is not a subjective approach but a relative one. 

Yes, I've spent close to a decade doing this, if you add all the different "philosophies" together that I examined rigorously and building up their cases as strongly as I could before "attacking" it. It was valuable to be able to have certainty about it, and be able to speak with some authority with people who believed those things. It also allowed me to speak simply about things instead of relying on jargon.

 

Trying to understand the jargon people used was a huge motivator for me to do this. I thought that they must be using big words because they understand things more fundamentally, but now I have certainty about this too.

 

People who rely on jargon to get a point across to people unfamiliar with their position are full of shit, every single time.

 

I have a great deal of experience with what you asked.

Great. So like, where I said you were right for criticizing me and that the onus was on the person introducing the foreign concept....that counted for jack? Because I did and then you amended your comment to dismiss me.

Logic is a fantastic tool for formalising thought, and effectively communicating ideas, as long as everyone is using the same logic form. However I have always struggled with the idea that logic by itself produces or arrives at truth in isolation. I'm currently wading through Wittgenstien myself and I am often surprised how rarely I see his work come up here considering how much a benchmark his work was.

 

I am a long way from diving into quantum logic although I'd like to once my mathematics is strong enough, but if a form of logic fails to be able to accurately encompass the properties of systems that exist in reality we have to accept that form of logic whilst still useful as a tool has limitations. It seems to me people often use forms of logic interchangeably whereby they will communicate their ideas using informal logic, and decry challenges to the validity of their beliefs as nitpicking. Yet when they wish to take apart a view they don't like they switch to a more formal form and take apart the whole idea so it can be safely rejected.

 

Being able to challenge your own cherished beliefs and ideas is Central to the notion of moving thought forwards both as an individual and as a species. I like the idea of taking opposing views and making them as strong as possible when comparing them with your own, the very act of which will make you more knowledgeable and wiser. Although I can concede that approach may not not be the most efficient methodology. I guess it all comes down to how much time do you have, and your inclination.

Here! Here!

[Kevin Beal]

Great. So like, where I said you were right for criticizing me and that the onus was on the person introducing the foreign concept....that counted for jack? Because I did and then you amended your comment to dismiss me.

I must have missed it. To be honest, I haven't read even half of the exchange here. If I had known you said that, I wouldn't have come on so strong and antagonistic. I apologize for that.

 

I have no interest in debating this though. I wish you guys a productive exchange and debate.

[bugzysegal]

I must have missed it. To be honest, I haven't read even half of the exchange here. If I had known you said that, I wouldn't have come on so strong and antagonistic. I apologize for that.

 

I have no interest in debating this though. I wish you guys a productive exchange and debate.

Oh. 

That was a bit meandering sorry. Ok so your objective standard is that of UPB correct? I want to highlight the fact that your pointing to the importance of practice and pragmatism. UPB outlines moral prescriptions about murder, property, aggression, etc. Great, but there are cases where UPB doesn't necessarily get the job done. So for example, should a doctor, who is offered her standard rate of pay for service by someone who requires immediate medical attention and has no other viable options at this time, be obligated to take this contract(this does happen). I believe a professor when having a discussion with Stefan brought up the example of a man hanging from a flagpole, who asks the Libertarian if he can break the window to save his own life.Stefan acknowledged that this was problematic though he dismissed it as not a general concern of everyday ethical reasoning. Many would argue that Libertarian theories suffer kinds of problems like these in not proscribing positive(meaning must act to do x) behavior. I would argue that the correct moral theory must be one that uses some shared point of reference, but that which moral theory (Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, etc.) applies is dictated by the situation.  While it's not evidence that this ought to be the way we behave, many people in fact do behave this way and I find that interesting. This is not a subjective approach but a relative one. 

Great. So like, where I said you were right for criticizing me and that the onus was on the person introducing the foreign concept....that counted for jack? Because I did and then you amended your comment to dismiss me.

Here! Here!

I'm actually going to change the word I used here when I called this relativism...that opens up the wrong can of worms.  So I would prescribe moral universalism like "that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",^[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature" (Thanks wikipedia) but a pluralist version where many universal ethical standards may apply to the depending on the idiosyncrasies of the problem.  Imagine the Utilitarian who comes across the mere addition paradox: "For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living" There are visual demonstrations of this on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia. The pluralist can say "no problem Mr. Utilitarian, appeal to UPB or virtue ethics."  That is, when you approach the limits of any moral theory, where another theory better fits that situation, you use that to solve your moral dilemma. 

[Will Torbald]

Oh. 

I'm actually going to change the word I used here when I called this relativism...that opens up the wrong can of worms.  So I would prescribe moral universalism like "that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",^[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature" (Thanks wikipedia) but a pluralist version where many universal ethical standards may apply to the depending on the idiosyncrasies of the problem.  Imagine the Utilitarian who comes across the mere addition paradox: "For any possible population of at least ten billion people, all with a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger imaginable population whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better even though its members have lives that are barely worth living" There are visual demonstrations of this on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia. The pluralist can say "no problem Mr. Utilitarian, appeal to UPB or virtue ethics."  That is, when you approach the limits of any moral theory, where another theory better fits that situation, you use that to solve your moral dilemma. 

 

Still relativist.

[bugzysegal]

Still relativist.

Actually it's pluralist. So if you had x which was a situation that had relevant moral elements A, B, and C, and moral theory 1 applied, every time some situation arose that had those elements (no more or less), moral theory 1 applies. It is universal. The tricky part is deciding which moral theory applies. I'm sure you are still unconvinced that this is not relativism but follow this link and click around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism.  I think the main contention is that action A given circumstance B, is right for me and everyone else as long as it comports with a reasonable and relatively consistent moral theory. So let's say the value that your moral theory emphasizes is autonomy, whereas the fundamental value of utilitarian thought is maximization of well-being. The pluralist looks at these and says that while both often compete, they both do have real value. Which is appropriate for a given situation depends on the situation itself. So John Stuart Mill admitted that there is intrinsic value in human life such that human life should always be treated as an end in and of itself.  This is a constraint on his moral theory that limits its applicability. Robert Nozick, the great Libertarian theorist acknowledged "side constraints" to his theories that limited it as well.  No matter your moral outlook, there are always walls you will run into.  These paradoxes and problematic possibilities are where the pluralism comes in.

[Will Torbald]

Actually it's pluralist. So if you had x which was a situation that had relevant moral elements A, B, and C, and moral theory 1 applied, every time some situation arose that had those elements (no more or less), moral theory 1 applies. It is universal. The tricky part is deciding which moral theory applies. I'm sure you are still unconvinced that this is not relativism but follow this link and click around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism.  I think the main contention is that action A given circumstance B, is right for me and everyone else as long as it comports with a reasonable and relatively consistent moral theory. So let's say the value that your moral theory emphasizes is autonomy, whereas the fundamental value of utilitarian thought is maximization of well-being. The pluralist looks at these and says that while both often compete, they both do have real value. Which is appropriate for a given situation depends on the situation itself. So John Stuart Mill admitted that there is intrinsic value in human life such that human life should always be treated as an end in and of itself.  This is a constraint on his moral theory that limits its applicability. Robert Nozick, the great Libertarian theorist acknowledged "side constraints" to his theories that limited it as well.  No matter your moral outlook, there are always walls you will run into.  These paradoxes and problematic possibilities are where the pluralism comes in.

 

You choose pluralism because you are unwilling to commit to one true universal standard of ethics. With a valid, solid, provable set of universal ethics - universal as in they apply to every case regardless of your personal feelings - you don't need other half baked theories.

[SamuelS]

No matter your moral outlook, there are always walls you will run into. These paradoxes and problematic possibilities are where the pluralism comes in.

If that is true, you should have no trouble finding and illustrating such "walls"/paradoxes/"problematic possibilities" w regard to a theory of morality that conforms to UPB.

[WasatchMan]

 No matter your moral outlook, there are always walls you will run into.  These paradoxes and problematic possibilities are where the pluralism comes in.

 

Most scientific models don't even meet the universality that you want to apply to human behavior.  Even models of gravity that can send a probe to Mars will break down in extreme situations.  This doesn't stop scientists and engineers from applying gravitational models - and I don't see how some particular paradox would stop philosophers from applying logical models of ethics to human behavior.

[bugzysegal]

If that is true, you should have no trouble finding and illustrating such "walls"/paradoxes/"problematic possibilities" w regard to a theory of morality that conforms to UPB.

I pointed to two such occasions.  One was where Stefan was having a discussion with a Libertarian professor from some southern state.  The flagpole example and one where he steps in and pulls his kid back from putting his penis on a filthy urinal. Another one was the contract example. Most people would say there is a freedom to contract that the doctor should be allowed to have, but also it seems like the doctor should be compelled to take the contract that would otherwise be considered fair. If you don't think this is a common intuition, note that it stems from one of the most notorious cases in U.S. legal contract history.

[bugzysegal]

Most scientific models don't even meet the universality that you want to apply to human behavior.  Even models of gravity that can send a probe to Mars will break down in extreme situations.  This doesn't stop scientists and engineers from applying gravitational models - and I don't see how some particular paradox would stop philosophers from applying logical models of ethics to human behavior.

I would completely agree with this sentiment! Just as you would not try and use quantum mechanics to solve problems at a classical mechanics level or vice versa. Note that these models are also seemingly incompatible!  I would say I couldn't think of a better analogy for the approach to morality I'm describing.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

That was a bit meandering sorry. Ok so your objective standard is that of UPB correct? I want to highlight the fact that your pointing to the importance of practice and pragmatism. UPB outlines moral prescriptions about murder, property, aggression, etc. Great, but there are cases where UPB doesn't necessarily get the job done. So for example, should a doctor, who is offered her standard rate of pay for service by someone who requires immediate medical attention and has no other viable options at this time, be obligated to take this contract(this does happen). I believe a professor when having a discussion with Stefan brought up the example of a man hanging from a flagpole, who asks the Libertarian if he can break the window to save his own life.Stefan acknowledged that this was problematic though he dismissed it as not a general concern of everyday ethical reasoning. Many would argue that Libertarian theories suffer kinds of problems like these in not proscribing positive(meaning must act to do x) behavior. I would argue that the correct moral theory must be one that uses some shared point of reference, but that which moral theory (Libertarianism, Utilitarianism, etc.) applies is dictated by the situation.  While it's not evidence that this ought to be the way we behave, many people in fact do behave this way and I find that interesting. This is not a subjective approach but a relative one. 

The standard is not UPB. The standard is reason and evidence. Something like logical consistency (a necessary component of reasoning) is UPB. When you addressed me/us in this debate/discussion you accepted logical consistency as an objective standard by which we can measure the validity and accuracy of our arguments and propositions. By debating you automatically accept a range of premises and universal standards. 

 

Morality is a subset of UPB that concerns enforceable behavior. Something like murder is wrong because no logically consistent justification is possible. Justifications must be universal. Murder cannot be universal. So if you murder you do so in the knowledge that it can not or has not been justified. It is objectively morally wrong. 

 

As for the flag pole/ life boat scenarios, there's a reason why people who put forward these thought experiments never use actual known examples from reality. What do you think it is?

[bugzysegal]

The standard is not UPB. The standard is reason and evidence. Something like logical consistency (a necessary component of reasoning) is UPB. When you addressed me/us in this debate/discussion you accepted logical consistency as an objective standard by which we can measure the validity and accuracy of our arguments and propositions. By debating you automatically accept a range of premises and universal standards. 

 

Morality is a subset of UPB that concerns enforceable behavior. Something like murder is wrong because no logically consistent justification is possible. Justifications must be universal. Murder cannot be universal. So if you murder you do so in the knowledge that it can not or has not been justified. It is objectively morally wrong. 

 

As for the flag pole/ life boat scenarios, there's a reason why people who put forward these thought experiments never use actual known examples from reality. What do you think it is?

The doctor example I gave is a real life example. It was a case presented to U.S. courts.  The cases are analogous in that both involve an individual who faces immanent harm, persons who are uniquely qualified to intervene, and further that the individual in danger is prepared to supply standard adequate value.  It's also noteworthy that there is little to no physical danger for the person who it's felt should act.

[SamuelS]

UPB does answer the doctor thing - there are no unchosen obligations. If a doctor obliges himself as a standard of practice that has nothing to do with UPB in the realm of ethics. It may fall under "aesthetically preferable", but....let me ask you, could you justify shooting the doctor for not treating the patient?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

The doctor example I gave is a real life example. It was a case presented to U.S. courts.  The cases are analogous in that both involve an individual who faces immanent harm, persons who are uniquely qualified to intervene, and further that the individual in danger is prepared to supply standard adequate value.  It's also noteworthy that there is little to no physical danger for the person who it's felt should act.

It's not a real life example. This is what I'm talking about. You gave an abstraction of a situation that did not contain the sufficient details required to make a valid ethical response. You did not cite an actual real event. There was almost no context, no information about the people, no information about the past, no information about any contracts or agreements. It's just a generic doctor and generic patient and the most basic scenario. That's not the same as a real thing that happened or could happen. What YOU said did not happen and never will happen. Abstract event do not happen. We can't apply ethics to cartoons.

 

It's what Ayn Rand called the ethics of emergencies. In emergencies we can't really apply correct ethics because we generally lack sufficient time and information. We just guess. So this is why these though experiments are always given with the most basic information and context. They are emergency situations disguised as detailed scenarios. 

I have never once seen a person provide a sufficiently detailed flag pole scenario. It's always the same "a guy in the desert has some water and another guy is dying of thirst...". They're not even imaginative.

 

You can test what I'm saying by providing an a moral dilemma scenario that actually happened (not an abstraction of an event that may have happened). 

[SamuelS]

hy·poc·ri·sy

həˈpäkrəsē/

noun

noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity; sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness; informalphoniness, fraud

"must politics be the perennial benchmark of hypocrisy?"

antonyms: sincerity

I think this word is important within the realm of morality. I think that moral relativism is an attempt to invalidate the entire notion of hypocrisy and evil so that people can excuse their unjust actions.

 

This conversation goes one further by playing word games to obfuscate meanig to the point that there is none.

 

Even the flagpole scenario is easy, you ask what's the harm and how would you react and you god damn well jump and hope the guy doesn't shoot you because he would be justified in doing so, and you hope he asks himself the same and doesn't shoot because he's not an asshole. It really isn't that difficult.

[Will Torbald]

I think this word is important within the realm of morality. I think that moral relativism is an attempt to invalidate the entire notion of hypocrisy and evil so that people can excuse their unjust actions.

 

This conversation goes one further by playing word games to obfuscate meanig to the point that there is none.

 

Even the flagpole scenario is easy, you ask what's the harm and how would you react and you god damn well jump and hope the guy doesn't shoot you because he would be justified in doing so, and you hope he asks himself the same and doesn't shoot because he's not an asshole. It really isn't that difficult.

 

You jump, break the window, and then ask the owner "Would you have done the same to save your life?".

[Frosty]

Thank you. I actually used those terms after someone had done so in another thread. If we take what is objectively true to be what is the most reliable (most testable) and most useful, I think we are on the same page.  Whether or not there is some state of affairs that is absolutely objective is something I am suspicious of. Just like it is reasonable to say something is circular, but we never think that anything really is or could be absolutely circular. 

 

Well it has to be constantly reliable not the most reliable, if it's unreliable to any degree then you probably don't have the whole picture or whole understanding. It has to be testable and more importantly repeatable in order to probe for reliability, I'm not sure useful factors into it, it's generally speaking very useful to understand how reality works because you cannot reliably interact with it and achieve your goals unless you can understand and predict future events.

 

The problem with objectivity is that it relies on being able to reliably test and confirm, we have no way so far to guarantee something is absolutely reliable, we know for example that the laws of physics work nicely and repeatedly but that's just an observation which so far has been true but we have no deeper understanding to be able to say it will always be true. When we adopt a scientific world view in order to test things we never arrive at 100% complete knowledge, we just arrive at descriptions of reality which work only under the conditions we test and observe them.

 

As long as those measurements are independent of opinion or who is making them, then the truth is objective. I'd say that arriving at knowledge that we're certain or close to certain about is actually much trickier than saying if it's objective or not.

[bugzysegal]

UPB does answer the doctor thing - there are no unchosen obligations. If a doctor obliges himself as a standard of practice that has nothing to do with UPB in the realm of ethics. It may fall under "aesthetically preferable", but....let me ask you, could you justify shooting the doctor for not treating the patient?

I could easily argue that he owes the parties family financial restitution.  Just because UPB gives you an answer doesn't mean its a good one. Remember, the whole point is that some given system of ethics is useful.  That doesn't require that, that usefulness be unbound. Furthermore there is another alternate case that comes up very frequently: A doctor treats an unconscious without the request of anyone from the surviving estate.  Voluntarism requires that a conscious actor give assent to a contract, therefore the doctor should not be able to recover money for materials and services rendered.  However we grant medical professionals restitution, realizing that anyone would assent if you had told them about the medical emergency ahead of time. Human life is so precious that in such circumstances quasi-contracts are formed where the element of mutual assent is not present.  This is the only other reasonable exception to the rule that I know of, but it is reasonable none-the-less. 

You jump, break the window, and then ask the owner "Would you have done the same to save your life?".

that's not a solution to the proscribed action for the owner. It's a practical way out and the one any sane person would take if they could...but let's easily amend the hypothetical: the owner doesn't want the person to trespass, but the window could open if he wants it.  Glass is quite strong and would not break from the dangling persons kicks. 

[Will Torbald]

Well it has to be constantly reliable not the most reliable, if it's unreliable to any degree then you probably don't have the whole picture or whole understanding. It has to be testable and more importantly repeatable in order to probe for reliability, I'm not sure useful factors into it, it's generally speaking very useful to understand how reality works because you cannot reliably interact with it and achieve your goals unless you can understand and predict future events.

 

The problem with objectivity is that it relies on being able to reliably test and confirm, we have no way so far to guarantee something is absolutely reliable, we know for example that the laws of physics work nicely and repeatedly but that's just an observation which so far has been true but we have no deeper understanding to be able to say it will always be true. When we adopt a scientific world view in order to test things we never arrive at 100% complete knowledge, we just arrive at descriptions of reality which work only under the conditions we test and observe them.

 

As long as those measurements are independent of opinion or who is making them, then the truth is objective. I'd say that arriving at knowledge that we're certain or close to certain about is actually much trickier than saying if it's objective or not.

 

There is a very good test for the laws of the universe. When they change, the universe would be immediately destroyed. Too bad we wouldn't be there to know it, so just know that if the forces of nature were to suddenly and spontaneously change we wouldn't even be able to feel it (because we'd all be dead).

 

What I mean to say with that is that you can be certain that as long as the world exists it won't change properties.

[Frosty]

There is a very good test for the laws of the universe. When they change, the universe would be immediately destroyed. Too bad we wouldn't be there to know it, so just know that if the forces of nature were to suddenly and spontaneously change we wouldn't even be able to feel it (because we'd all be dead).

 

What I mean to say with that is that you can be certain that as long as the world exists it won't change properties.

 

But it's indicative of a deeper problem with knowledge, the physical laws of the universe were just one example of a more general problem. We can describe what was and what currently is through both repeated measurement and inference, but we have no way of saying it wont change tomorrow, these are things we're certain about to very high degress and we don't expect to change merely because we have no reason to believe it, but even that doesn't achieve absolute certainty.

 

We currently don't have any reason to believe that the laws could change, it might make the universe very different and destroy all matter, but that would merely be unsuitable for us, it doesn't mean that it's not possible, the point is we don't know and our understanding isn't deep enough yet to claim these things strongly in the sense of having positive proof.

[Guest Gee]

But it's indicative of a deeper problem with knowledge, the physical laws of the universe were just one example of a more general problem. We can describe what was and what currently is through both repeated measurement and inference, but we have no way of saying it wont change tomorrow, these are things we're certain about to very high degress and we don't expect to change merely because we have no reason to believe it, but even that doesn't achieve absolute certainty.

 

We currently don't have any reason to believe that the laws could change, it might make the universe very different and destroy all matter, but that would merely be unsuitable for us, it doesn't mean that it's not possible, the point is we don't know and our understanding isn't deep enough yet to claim these things strongly in the sense of having positive proof.

 

 

Have you done any research into the possibility of physical laws breaking down in the future? 

Because this would be a breaking of the symmetry of the universe, a foundational axiom of physics (see Nother's theorem) and therefore invalidate huge areas of valid physics. Is it Nobel prize time?

[Will Torbald]

But it's indicative of a deeper problem with knowledge, the physical laws of the universe were just one example of a more general problem. We can describe what was and what currently is through both repeated measurement and inference, but we have no way of saying it wont change tomorrow, these are things we're certain about to very high degress and we don't expect to change merely because we have no reason to believe it, but even that doesn't achieve absolute certainty.

 

We currently don't have any reason to believe that the laws could change, it might make the universe very different and destroy all matter, but that would merely be unsuitable for us, it doesn't mean that it's not possible, the point is we don't know and our understanding isn't deep enough yet to claim these things strongly in the sense of having positive proof.

 

You can have absolute certainty that if the forces of the universe were to change, everything would be destroyed. We actually do have reason to think that the Higgs Field/Boson could change due to an effect of quantum tunneling and it could end the universe in an instant. The probability of it happening are incredibly small, but exist. That doesn't mean that we should worry about 2+2 = Duck sometime later.

[Troubador]

The fundemental and underlying principles of the universe and all manifest reality will not change. What is possible is that our knowledge is flawed/incomplete. Physics I believe cannot even make it to double figures in terms of the percentage of the universe we have categorised and understood. There are stars too big to exist based on our current models, so too are there galaxies too colossal for our current understanding to account for. Yet these things can and do exist, so therefore our understanding is not quite there yet.

 

As I've said before classical logic fails to incorporate quantum behaviour within its purview, and such we look to new forms of logic to account for this. As far as thought and thinking goes we as a species are still very much out in the frontier. Personally I think this exciting and inspiring, we shouldn't close off avenues of thought for discussion and analysis. Such would be distinctly anti-philosophical.

[Will Torbald]

As I've said before classical logic fails to incorporate quantum behaviour within its purview, and such we look to new forms of logic to account for this.

 

This is not quite true. Quantum mechanics has behaviors that seem counter intuitive, but for the nature of the particles, and what they are, it makes sense for them to behave the way they do. In reality, all physics is quantum mechanics. The same equations of probability are applicable for everyday occurrences. It's just that the probabilities of weird quantum phenomena are almost completely zero at the level of our senses. That is, quantum physics does not work in illogical ways, it simply works in probability, which is not illogical.

[Frosty]

You can have absolute certainty that if the forces of the universe were to change, everything would be destroyed. We actually do have reason to think that the Higgs Field/Boson could change due to an effect of quantum tunneling and it could end the universe in an instant. The probability of it happening are incredibly small, but exist. That doesn't mean that we should worry about 2+2 = Duck sometime later.

 

We can be certain of the results of changing laws in the universe only to the degree that we're certain of the laws to start with, which is to say we're very certain, but we're not absolutely certain because our knowledge is always tentative, it's open to be changed if we learn something new about the universe that contradicts it. 

 

The fundemental and underlying principles of the universe and all manifest reality will not change. What is possible is that our knowledge is flawed/incomplete.

 

What is your evidence for the first assertion? If our knowledge is flawed or incomplete then we can potentially in future find corrections or new evidence that invalidates something we previously believed to be true, this is why we can say we understand some things to be true to a high degree of certainty but we can't be completely certain.

 

This is not quite true. Quantum mechanics has behaviors that seem counter intuitive, but for the nature of the particles, and what they are, it makes sense for them to behave the way they do. In reality, all physics is quantum mechanics. The same equations of probability are applicable for everyday occurrences. It's just that the probabilities of weird quantum phenomena are almost completely zero at the level of our senses. That is, quantum physics does not work in illogical ways, it simply works in probability, which is not illogical.

 

Yeah it's interesting if you study physics what you have to come to accept is that the classical laws of physics like the laws of motion and things like this, while accurate to arbitrarily high degrees of accuracy, are just general forms of quantum mechanics which ultimately is what describes the universe.

 

Quantum theory does actually break classical logic, for example the order of operation in classical logic doesn't matter, A or B is the same as B or A, also, A and B is the same as B and A, but in quantum mechanics where results are probablistic it actually matters what order measurements and logic operations on the results come out, you get different answers.

 

I watch a lot of Leonard Susskinds free lectures call thetheoreticalminimum which you can find here http://theoreticalminimum.com/and addressing logic specifically you can find the lecture here http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter/lecture-2

[Will Torbald]

We can be certain of the results of changing laws in the universe only to the degree that we're certain of the laws to start with, which is to say we're very certain, but we're not absolutely certain because our knowledge is always tentative, it's open to be changed if we learn something new about the universe that contradicts it. 

 

 

What is your evidence for the first assertion? If our knowledge is flawed or incomplete then we can potentially in future find corrections or new evidence that invalidates something we previously believed to be true, this is why we can say we understand some things to be true to a high degree of certainty but we can't be completely certain.

 

 

Yeah it's interesting if you study physics what you have to come to accept is that the classical laws of physics like the laws of motion and things like this, while accurate to arbitrarily high degrees of accuracy, are just general forms of quantum mechanics which ultimately is what describes the universe.

 

Quantum theory does actually break classical logic, for example the order of operation in classical logic doesn't matter, A or B is the same as B or A, also, A and B is the same as B and A, but in quantum mechanics where results are probablistic it actually matters what order measurements and logic operations on the results come out, you get different answers.

 

I watch a lot of Leonard Susskinds free lectures call thetheoreticalminimum which you can find here http://theoreticalminimum.com/and addressing logic specifically you can find the lecture here http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter/lecture-2

 

The problem with this hyper skepticism is that you're conflating theory with observation. In no point in the future will we observe objects falling up without a change in the actual force of gravity without the universe being destroyed. What can happen is that a new theory explaining gravity will arise, but it will not contradict what we have already proven given general relativity. It will simply expand it, not contradict it.

[bugzysegal]

There is a very good test for the laws of the universe. When they change, the universe would be immediately destroyed. Too bad we wouldn't be there to know it, so just know that if the forces of nature were to suddenly and spontaneously change we wouldn't even be able to feel it (because we'd all be dead).

 

What I mean to say with that is that you can be certain that as long as the world exists it won't change properties.

Actually the only laws of classical physics that seem to be without exception are those of gravitation, if I remember correctly that is.  Even the speed of light changes with enough gravity. If we are talking about fundamental forces acting uniformly, most have exceptions under extreme circumstances (problems that some scientists postulate may never be solvable).  I think one example is what happens to information that goes into a black hole.

The fundemental and underlying principles of the universe and all manifest reality will not change. What is possible is that our knowledge is flawed/incomplete. Physics I believe cannot even make it to double figures in terms of the percentage of the universe we have categorised and understood. There are stars too big to exist based on our current models, so too are there galaxies too colossal for our current understanding to account for. Yet these things can and do exist, so therefore our understanding is not quite there yet.

 

As I've said before classical logic fails to incorporate quantum behaviour within its purview, and such we look to new forms of logic to account for this. As far as thought and thinking goes we as a species are still very much out in the frontier. Personally I think this exciting and inspiring, we shouldn't close off avenues of thought for discussion and analysis. Such would be distinctly anti-philosophical.

Funny that you should mention this.  When I was scrounging for applications of paraconsistent logic, apparently some philosophers of science think it may be useful to explain wave-particle duality. 

Have you done any research into the possibility of physical laws breaking down in the future? 

Because this would be a breaking of the symmetry of the universe, a foundational axiom of physics (see Nother's theorem) and therefore invalidate huge areas of valid physics. Is it Nobel prize time?

The idea that physics wont break down in the future is as inductive as any other. There are no self-evident axioms of science, just axioms science elects not to challenge.