Blah Blah Blah Blog Revisited
I had just about finished this entry when my browser took a shit and about a half hours work with it ever reminding me to save often. And so I begin anew. This blog is my attempt to satisfy Trey's request to build on previous blogs. I decided to revisit my Blah Blah Blah blog (BBBb) for two reasons: first, the request for blog revisitation includes a link to the class prompts page where amongst prompts on guilty pleasures and image appreciation there is the remnants of a discussion on the difference between scienfific inquiry and moral reasoning where I initially posted the somewhat atypical BBBb; and secondly, because Cory invested some time and effort into crafting an essay on the subject where he states his perspective of which he has inquired in each subsequent week as to my opinion, I felt it only proper to respond.
I'm not sure most of you recall the discussion in class where the two perspectives seem to be: one, that morality was a subjective subject best left in the realm of philosophy and religion; or two, that morality was as objective a topic for study as say biology or any natural science. This characterization of the discussion is based on my recollections and if anyone disagrees with it I fully admit to my fallibility, unlike the pope. Frankly, I had moved on which I suspect most of the class had done as well.
After the class discussion, Cory posted a link to a web page on morals and ethics from the philosophy department of an institution with which I am unfamiliar named Lander University. Anyone can read the page, but the gist is that morals can be scientifically studied under the heading of psychology, sociology, or anthropology. As a psych major myself I would suggest there is a reason why these social sciences are sometimes referred to as soft science as opposed to the natural or hard sciences. For most of social science the main tool of scientific inquiry is the case study which falls well short of the requirements of scientific method as so well laid out in Cory's essay. Psychology has made great strides in employing scientific method into it's domain and has come far since Freud first used the case study technique and his keen mind to devise his now widely ridiculed Oedipus complex theory amongst others. However, I would suggest that psychology has a long way to go before it successfully employs scientific method into the study of all aspects of human nature. In my mind, this is the problem with studying something like morality scientifically, how do you devise an experiment that doesn't violate some premise of scientific method and thereby become a pseudo-science?
My feeling on reading the Lander U. page was so what? I can find a link to support just about any point of view. To demonstrate this I posted a link to one of Aristotle's treatises on the subject of science v. morality from which I copied the relevant portion and posted into this blog. It was after this that I had the idea for the BBBb. I recall thinking that often in discourse individuals seem far more interested in demonstrating the pedantic nature of their learning than in any real discourse, with myself at times being as guilty as any as much as I dislike that. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.) - Walt Whitman. So when I thought of what I would post on the subject I thought it doesn't matter. It's all been said before by individuals much brighter than me. All I have to add is blah blah blah blah blah. Then the ideas of the links came to me and it just kinda grew from there.
As for Cory's essay, I think it is very well written but covers no new ground. It is simply a rehash of the point of view he stated in class. I don't agree that because scientific methodology and moral reasoning both include "a priori assumptions and linguistic ambiguity" they are therefore the same. This strikes me as faulty logic.
Anyway, there's my 500+ words (700 even, gimme my points!) on blog revisitation.
Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts.
Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature.
And goods also give rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better.
In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs. -Aristotle
And here is the original Greek for those of you so inclined.
τὰ δὲ καλὰ καὶ τὰ δίκαια, (15) περὶ ὧν ἡ πολιτικὴ σκοπεῖται, πολλὴν ἔχει διαφορὰν καὶ πλάνην, ὥστε δοκεῖν νόμῳ μόνον εἶναι, φύσει δὲ μή.
τοιαύτην δέ τινα πλάνην ἔχει καὶ τἀγαθὰ διὰ τὸ πολλοῖς συμβαίνειν βλάβας ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν· ἤδη γάρ τινες ἀπώλοντο διὰ πλοῦτον, ἕτεροι δὲ δι᾽ ἀνδρείαν.
ἀγαπητὸν οὖν περὶ τοιούτων (20) καὶ ἐκ τοιούτων λέγοντας παχυλῶς καὶ τύπῳ τἀληθὲς ἐνδείκνυσθαι, καὶ περὶ τῶν ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ καὶ ἐκ τοιούτων λέγοντας τοιαῦτα καὶ συμπεραίνεσθαι.
τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον καὶ ἀποδέχεσθαι χρεὼν ἕκαστα τῶν λεγομένων· πεπαιδευμένου γάρ ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τἀκριβὲς ἐπιζητεῖν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον (25) γένος, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον ἡ τοῦ πράγματος φύσις ἐπιδέχεται· παραπλήσιον γὰρ φαίνεται μαθηματικοῦ τε πιθανολογοῦντος ἀποδέχεσθαι καὶ ῥητορικὸν ἀποδείξεις ἀπαιτεῖν.
I didn't post that link. That's the first time I've seen it.
I don't believe that the scientific method is the same as moral reasoning, but only that insofar as an objective explanation of natural phenomena can be developed through the application of a mechanism that, in a vacuum, is objective, so too can an objective value judgement be made. Moral philosophers do not apply the scientific method, but rather reason, to justify a moral imperative. The scientist relies on the same mechanism to justify a scientific imperative.
To put my cards on the table, I don't think that we, by any faculty, have access to anything of an objective reality (though I do believe one probably exists), but I think that the means by which we attempt to harness confusion (and the results thereof) has instumental value (hence the title of the essay).
Ironically, this:
Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to exist only by convention, and not by nature. [...] it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs. -Aritstotle
is an often quoted passage in essays clarifying what is meant by objective morality, despite being occasionally misunderstood to imply that political, economic, and normative judgements are wholly subjective (note that Aristotle epitomized the objective moralist and profoundly influenced subsequent objectivists).
Incidentally, I would say that any science that relies on probabilistic reasoning and explicity recognizes that the results of its inquiry are potentialities, not certainties, has at least come to terms with the limitations of its inquiry. This is far from objectionable, and philosophically important; kudos to psychology. - Cory
Please forgive me for my assumption on the Lander U. link, I am not sure why I assumed you were the truly anonymous poster. In retrospect, I should have known it was not you. Thank you for the further clarification of your essay. I agree with the point you make regarding access to an objective reality, however I do feel that scientific method is more likely to approach an objective reality than moral reasoning due to moral reasoning's time and culture specific nature. Thanks again. -Brian
How do you mean? To my mind, you've not described a difference between moral reasoning and reasoning within the scientific method; both are limited by their respective places in time and space. - Cory
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.