Science and Value Judgements

Post Reply New Topic

All words are value judgments.

Science has created thousands of words, by dividing groups of things/phenomena up into smaller and smaller ones by perceiving/declaring certain/selected differences between them.

It is probably the most powerful producer/manufacturer of value judgement in the world today, because people/society is under the impression that the words/labels science creates are "facts" rather than subjective distinctions, whereas most other disciplines/producers of words are understood to be subjective to some extent.

The most fundamental judgement of value may be the degree of "pain" involved in any experience.

Edit. ( Apologies to nara44, who quoted the original of this passage in their reply ) In applying value judgements to all of life science may, while seeming to be in the business of trying to eliminate pain, actually be contributing to it.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 May 2009, 9:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scienc ... ition.html

Science is a map. A really good map, but nothing more.

it could and it would be done
science will eventually eliminate pain and death from our existence
it is his ultimate goal and sooner or later it will get there
probably when words/subjects would be smaller than the smallest thing so symbols and reality would be one
we are steadily progressing toward such a point
and when we get there there would be love

It's not about facts. If you understood science, you'd understand that. Science does not seek to prove, science seeks to gain knowledge through DISPROVING.

It's about validity.

You may not find a scientist very valid, but I would say that is a flaw in judgment. When you understand the scientific method, giving value to anything that does not hold itself to such a high standard, seems impractical.

Perhaps this video will help.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE[/youtube]

Edit. Rethink in progress. Apologies to nara44 who quoted my original reply.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 May 2009, 9:47 am, edited 3 times in total.

that's nice
and can also serve to explain why many AS and autistic's in general appears "frozen",silent or motionless to the general public
if u add that to the special way AS treats word(my English sucks but my Hebrew is excellent:-))
and our tendency toward the abstract u may have a nice peace of theory/

If the 58 votes on my poll in General Autism Discussion thread, "Are You Addicted to Language?",
( at: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt97957.html ), are anything to go by, this is definitely the case. 70% voted that they were either "Heavy Users" or that it is "Their Life".

Recent theories of language state that the behaviour, evolution etc of language can be described most accurately as that of an organism/life form which has evolved in a symbiotic relationship with the human brain.
.

Last edited by ouinon on 13 May 2009, 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

What's your alternative to science, ounion? Taking things by faith or making things up as you go along?

Not proposing an alternative; just thinking about it being a series of value judgements.
.

everything has to do with survival, if you dissect it. if you do NOT dissect it, then no, science is simply information gathering. i cannot POSSIBLY see how my knowledge of triceratops and pterodactylus, has to do with my survival.
im not gonna use it.
im never gonna earn money from it.
i just like to know it.

My beef is with people applying something they learned via science to another realm (medicine, agriculture, education, etc) and then arrogantly proclaiming that they are scientific, while the people who don't use malathion on their tomatoes are anti-scientific. Sure, science tells us that malathion can kill bugs ... and kill natural predators, affect our bodies negatively, and encourage us to grown more inbred crops that can't survive on their own and may not be as nutritious as older varieties. Science itself is very different from how flawed people use science to inform and change economic and cultural systems.

Some of our knowledge of triceratops and other dinos was gained by science, but simply learning about dinosaurs is an endeavor in natural history.

eh... its NOT science BUT natural history?
how do you think they learn about triceratops? invite it home, and have a chat?

the SCIENTIFIC METHOD applies to ALL science, natural history IS SCIENCE.
the observation of a cheetah IS SCIENCE.
the cataloguing and observation of nature IS SCIENCE.

let me suggest another take o our so called "addiction" to language
personally i was offended many times in the past when girlfriends and and random ppl at social network told me i write very good and it all ways felt weird to me when ppl who knew me told me i have a way with words
it is especially strange when u consider that like many of us i rarely speak at all
i can stay silent for months
like many AS i tend to take words literally and have difficulties in discerning double talk or manipulative speach,
a trait common to many of us and is considered a sure sign of our "illness"
( in our poor world to be honest is still considered kind of a terminal disease)
all the above caused me to speculate that it maybe that AS are wired differently where words and actions are concerned
when we say "friendship" we mean it
when we say "family" we simply mean it
it is so crazy and unheard of to actually mean what u say, we get into trouble and terrible pains most of our life/
but on the other hand that same "psychotic" honesty helps me see things relatively clearly and deeply and bring food to my table,a lot of food as I'm a programmer and considered to be very good at what i'm doing
many AS are
and it is no coincidence that you will find many AS at place where words and symbols are very closely tied to "reality" and need to be dealt with respect to say the least

my point is:
language can be ,and is ,an exoskeleton ,as long as u use it as honestly and as accurately as u can,
words have meaning only when coupled with actions
otherwise they are destructive and dangerous
in a world that transforms old power structures into new communication networks language and symbols are going to be the primary survival tools.

Science relies on the scientific method - creating hypotheses and testing them.

Cataloging data is not itself science.

Observing nature is not itself science.

Learning facts obtained from science is not itself science.

Making use of things learned by science is not science.

have you ANY - whatsoever - experience w scientific work?

i could also go out and debate taoism vs buddhism, based on assumtions, and what i think matters.
"buddhism has orange costumes! taoism dont! ergo buddhism is more strict!"

SCIENTISTS use facts obtained from science, in their science. cataloguing requires science. observation requires the science of observing correctly, handling the observations correctly and - - - cataloguing them correctly, according to the scientific way of doing it.

and you GOTTA be shi**ing me, making use of science isnt science? so... building an airplane, based on research, thats... poetry? music? religion? what? oh maybe its technology! cus technology isnt science, just like natural history isnt science, anatomy isnt science, chemistry and astronomy are apparently not science.

in fact, according to your definition - the scientific method IN ITSELF - and nothing else - is science?

you know what the norwegian word for science is? "Knowledge", actually its more like "Knowledgeness".

I strongly subscribe to the fact value distinction, that some statements are facts and some are values and that the two shouldn't be confused. To say "an electron has a negitive charge" is not to say "I like the fact electrons have negitive charges". Unless you can reduce the first statement to the second then your first claim fails.

If you want to say science is given a special authority, that's true (be it justified or not). If you want to say people accept science as the truth based upon the testimony of scientists, that's true (even though I doubt its legitimacy). However, neither of these show science is value based. The first of these is only a value judgement because people accept the second, the second not being a value judgement but a claim about people's epistemology. Or if you claim that science is a value because people actively do it, well, imagine if someone actively did science, not because they cared about science but because they needed the money, then the only value judgement is the desirabilty of money, not science, even if whoever is paying the money values science.

I guess words can have an immense impact upon what people value but words themselves are not values (or at least scientific ones are not, perhaps others are). Actually, I don't think individual words can ever be values, only facts, you need statements (i.e. a string of words) to form values.