I seldom say anything revolutionary and I shall demand that the forum double my royalties before I do so on this forum.
uglybeech, I think what most people are meaning is that ethics is arbitrary. they’re just using the slightly misleading term subjective to say it - misleading because of the individual subject connotation of the word.
It can be “inquired into in a systematic way” is why I and Webster would claim ethics to be a science.
The “boo/hooray” approach is well attested in philosophical literature.
Starts with David Hume:
And then is taken further by the Logical Positivists / Non-Cognitivists.
There are plenty of criticisms of this approach, but for me it makes a compelling case for saying that “ethics” as commonly understood is not susceptible of scientific (ie. rational / empirical) investigation.
Ugly Beech - perhaps you could elaborate on how you’d go about subjecting ethical claims to scientific enquiry?
coberst, here’s a dictionary entry for you. Please notice that there is more than one definition for the word ethics.
Please try not to confuse the study of a human system of values with that system itself.
Perhaps we should all stop debating whether it can or cannot be done, and let the cannots sit back and observe while the cans perform an example.
First you would need to be familiar with the logic (principles) of ethics and also the concepts of ethics. With this knowledge one could compare and contrast this domain of knowledge with any other domain of knowledge.
Well said!
For the record - E.E. Cummings was a man. (The Wikipedia article makes the claim that “His publishers and others have sometimes echoed the unconventional capitalization in his poetry by writing his name in lower case, as e. e. cummings; Cummings himself did not approve of this rendering.”)
That focuses on an interesting question.
What science (domain of knowledge) is tasked with the job of investigating other domains of knowledge as to their logical legitimacy? I guess that philosophy is the answer. Philosophy is the only science capable of examining assumptions so I guess it would be the obvious domain of knowledge for this job.
Philosophy would first examine any science as to the assumptions made, then I guess it would examine it as to the necessity and sufficiency of its principles. I suppose the concepts would be examined to determine there aptness for the task that particular science undertakes.
Another interesting problem would be categorizing.
If I were to categorize science I might start with:
Science
Normal science (as defined by Kuhn)–with paradigm
Not normal science—without paradigm
Then under that we would have the subcategory Ethics
Religious ethics is ethics with a paradigm i.e. normal science
Non religious ethics is ethics without a paradigm.
As empirical study is, pretty much by definition, neutral on subjective concepts like “right” and “wrong”, it is only possible to empirically study perceptions that inform ethical systems and how those affect behavior. It’s quite possible that knowledge gained empirically could itself inform an ethical system, but it is not the system itself, nor do I think it could be.
OK, fine but then we’re back where we started since my point was that arguing that ethics is arbitrary or inherently subjective is a facile dismissal. You said
Can you make a distinction for me between arbitrary and random? I’m sure there is one.
As for whether it’s purely subjective, I’ll concede that it depends on what sense of subjective you’re using. So I don’t want to get into semantics or hair-splitting. What I’m rejecting is when recognition of cultural and individual variation leads one to say that we can’t resolve our differences (or that the differences can only be resolved by a hand vote) because ethics is arbitrary, irrational and one person’s interpretation is as good as anybody else’s.
I think I was quite clear that ethics is not a scientific project because attaching value or preference to one condition or another doesn’t fall under the domain of “knowledge gathering.” But that doesn’t mean it’s not well suited to rational inquiry.
So does just about everything. Science goes beyond this, and some of the previous posts have given ways in which science is different from just a domain of knowledge. As others have said, ethics can be studied scientifically (for instance trying to correlate social structures and ethical systems, or even nutrition and ethics) but I don’t think ethical systems can be constructed scientifically.
Much of ethics stems from considerably before Christianity.
I haven’t noticed any such thing for my kids. In California schools the constraints of budget and the needs of standardized tests have cut all non-essential classwork to the bone.
BTW, rationally determined ethics are not scientifically determined ethics. While all of science (in principle if not in practice) is rational, not all that is rational is science. I suspect philisophers of ethics back to Socrates at least would claim they were rational. You can get several very different rationally deternined ethical systems depending on where you begin. In addition, those who claim that morals come from God might reject rationality as a requirement for the development of ethics. I’m sure we can all think of many examples.
I think you are seriously misunderstanding Kuhn. There is always a paradigm - Kuhn talked about how that changes with new evidence and new concepts.
Could you define paradigm, as you see it, and give an example of a non-normal science without one?
Or are you considering the scientific method as the paradigm? That’s not what he meant. “Science” without using the scientific method is not really science. Which is what people have been telling you, in fact.
Philosophy is not science, and neither is the philosophy of science. Science of course started in philosophy, but has diverge significantly in the past 500 years.
I don’t think science can study the logical legitimacy of ethics. It can examine ethical systems in practice to determine if they meet their claims - for instance increasing the general welfare. But I don’t think that would be a case of studying logical legitimacy, since no ethical system will ever be applied perfectly.
Perhaps you could give an example, then, of a contentious ethical view for which a consensus has been reached?
I would presume from your statement that you believe we can arrive at agreed ethical norms… I cannot think of any that are agreed by everyone as valid in a given situation. Is that what you’re claiming, or is your position somewhat less fixed than that?
Voyager
‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?
Science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The natural sciences such as physics operate within the confines of a paradigm. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. For example the laws of physics as developed by Newton are a paradigm. Einstein’s theory of relativity is a paradigm. The sanctity of the ‘market place’ is a paradigm of economics.
The college student of physics studies these paradigms of the science of physics to qualify for acceptance into that particular profession. From these paradigms patterns of recognition and routines and algorithms for solutions have evolved and are memorized by all students who wish to join that particular profession. An algorithm is a step-by-step process for solving a problem. A simple example of an algorithm is the process we learned to accomplish long division.
Normal science involves itself only in problems definable by paradigms and algorithms. Normal science is successful because it deals only with these unilogical problems. These problems are circumscribed by the paradigm and contain many algorithms for guiding the practitioner into the proper mode for solution of the problem.
Normal science utilizes the ‘scientific method’ to solve problems. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves in incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties. Science solves puzzles.
The “scientific method” forms the heart of scientific legitimacy. This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis. This hypothesis is the bases for predicting what should happen in certain conditions if this hypothesis is true. Evidence is assembled to test the validity of the hypothesis. If the evidence indicates that the hypothesis has not been proven to be invalid then other predictions based on the hypothesis are used to construct additional experiments to further test its legitimacy.
Normal scientific research is devoted to accumulating evidence that supports and expands the horizon of the accepted paradigm. The scientific researcher anticipates the answer and organizes the research effort to verify that anticipated result. Science does not perform experiments upon matters wherein the results are not expected. This is the nature of puzzle solving. The end is known in great detail and that which is in doubt is the various ways of verifying that anticipated end. The prize winning puzzle solver is he or she with the cleverest efforts to reach the anticipated end result. Puzzles are problems that test the ingenuity and skill in puzzle solutions. The intrinsic value of the solution is virtually nil but the assured existence of a solution is essential.
The paradigm instructs the logic–the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration–of the particular domain of knowledge encompassed by that paradigm. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.
To begin, : Mr. coberst, you might consider being less condescending to your audience. I have a PhD in computer science, over a third of a century of research experience, and more publshed papers than I can remember. I am far from being the best educated or most skilled person in the SDMB. I know a hell of a lot more about algorithms than you do. I think you mean well, and you have way too few post to be Pit material, but you are heading in that direction.
Now, with that off my chest…
QUOTE=coberst]Voyager
‘Normal science’, as described by Thomas Kuhn, is the science of means, controlled generally by a paradigm. We normally use the word ‘science’, which has more than one meaning, to mean the ‘normal science’ that Kuhn speaks of. Science, to the laity, is a word encompassing technology and probably all that is good about the human ability to reason. I suspect the average person often wonders why everyone cannot be scientific about developing solutions for all problems. Why cannot we be scientific and rational in solving all our problems?
[/quote]
I have read Kuhn. By “controlled by a paradigm” he means, I believe, that many see results and problems in terms of the current paradigm. When things are viewed through a new paradigm, the results may have different meanings, and a different research agenda may present itself. Any researcher who has had an insight about what a set of data really means knows what I am talking about.
Newtonian physics and relativity are paradigms. However, the success of science is from use of a method that converges on good models of reality and is self correcting. The current paradigm suggests things for scientist to study, but if science were confined to a single paradigm it would not be successful at all. Science is successful because evidence can force the switch to a new paradigm when the old paradigm loses its explanatory power.
Algorithms have little to do with science. Math is not science. In physics I learned a body of knowledge, some equations, and a methodology. I did not learn any algorithms, and I suspect you didn’t either. Kuhn notes that textbooks came into being when the body of knowledge of a field of science became too big to be reviewed in each paper, and this encourage the formation of a class of specialists, since someone picking up a scientific work could no longer understand it without background training.
Perhaps if you define “puzzle” broadly enough. You really need to go back and reread Kuhn. Things do go incrementally within a paradigm, but the whole point of “scientific” revolution, and the related paradigm shift, is that discoveries stop being incremental for a while.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Any decently constructed experiment must provide an opportunity for the hypothesis to be falsified. Michaelson-Morley is a classic example. Now to a certain extent you are correct that certain results are expected, since experiments are constructed around hypotheses and a hypothesis without predictive value is worthless. But a good scientist is open to any result. Science is not like high school physics, where you know the answer and can finagle results accordingly. (Not that I ever did that. 
)
In fact, even if you get the expected results you need to be very aware of ways in which the experiment can be flawed so that you get them. Pons and Fleishman did not do this well. This is what reproducibility is all about.
The paradigm instructs the logic–the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration–of the particular domain of knowledge encompassed by that paradigm. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.
[/QUOTE]
Speaking cynically, I could say the benefit of paradigms is that they suggest things that the vast majority of non-creative scientist to do. The few creative ones go beyond the current paradigm to the next step. Paradigms can be dangerous. I believe Feynman talked about how a research result in a breakthrough paper from a famous scientist (it might have been the mass of an electron) was wrong. For years after results on this centered around the bad result, slowly moving to the correct value.
In parting, here is something I learned from lurking on comp.arch. On the net, never, never assume someone you are talking with knows less than they do, until they prove it. You never know that you’re not talking to John Mashey.
You might be interested that John Von Neumann and an obscure guy called Parfitt have turned up in another thread.
Parfitt, to my knowledge is the only guy who came up with a Darwinian explanation of Ethics - but I have been asleep for 30 years.
Go hunt that thread, the two prior posts are interesting.
I can’t be arsed to repeat my post, but if you, as an engineer, appreciate elegance, then you’ll appreciate the simplicity and elegance of Parfitt’s proposition.
I think he was one of the smartest guys I have ever listened to