Hate speech laws

Post Reply New Topic

IMO, morality asks, "What is good?," not, "What is true?" Questions of goodness cannot be resolved empirically.

Unless we are referring to this type of goodness (I know - Now I'm just being silly)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_of_fit

I agree completely, by the way. That's why I consider David Hume to be the "last" moral philosopher...

And it brought a certain smile to my face after being dragged through the deductions from Rawls' original position to specific policy proposals that I could make a statement with equal empirical value simply by saying "I disagree".

i will go back to basics and say "if you think it, you should say it. at least then everyone knows who they are really dealing with"

Needless to say, quite a lot of people do. They make that moral judgement, hold those ethical values, and will argue for them with sincerity and in good faith.



But we're back to that question - Lenin, was it? - "Freedom, yes. But for whom, and to do what?". Plenty of people suffer because of the freedom of others, even freedom of speech. Or do we play utilitarianism, where the rights of a few are restricted if many can then live without suffering?

The fact that some people are vegetarian is besides the point. My point is that people who make this kind of argument against the existence of a foundation for human morality, without the existence of gods that is, are making a false analogy and so it is not a valid argument.



Yes it a utilitarian type system but even if a minority suffer that suffering should also be minimized. It doesn't mean that anyone's rights should be minimized. Can you be more specific about who is hurt by freedom? Freedom of speech does can and does have restrictions when it encroaches on other peoples rights.

Let me clarify what I meant. What is the concept of morality useful for? Basically, it's that everyone doesn't murder, rape or steal from everyone else, in which case it is not possible for a functioning society to exist. So, when we talk about morality, we are talking primarily, about the interactions of an individual with other individuals within a society, therefore the concept of morality only makes sense within that context. Your example of hypocrisy is also an example that exists within that context, so it is not a counterexample to what I was saying. At a fundamental level, the universe made up of just matter and energy, good and evil doesn't exit.

That does not mean that there is no such thing as so-called "natural law", it does exist in a sense and it's origins can be explained by evolution and natural selection. That's why, in fact, all species of social animals can be said to have set of "morals". It is a type altruism that developed in social animals in order to encourage co-operation because it is essential for the survival of any such species. So, in that sense it's not just limited to humans.

David Hume is my thought hero.

I consider Emanuel Kant, the spawn of the devil.

ruveyn

ruveyn: Genuine science is a relative term, it depends on what you mean it is, the definiton. Pseudo science is obviously much stronger of a statement. The hypotesis of sociology are testable, and falsifiable, there are strict laws in academia to ensure that this is possible, and they are always followed and monitored by the surrounding academic milieu. "Popper's demarcation between a sceince and a non-science", I don't know that much about Popper to argument from his perspectives, I know however that you are talking about positivism and non-positivism. There is a big discussion about what importance those two principles in science have, and you are not adressing that.

Jono: There is a way to do this in sociology as well, also by Popper's laws, but I want to say that positivism is not always the best principle to decide what value a science has, there is other factors that are equally important, and that legitimates a science as sociology to an extensive degree. There are objective explanations in sociology, in quantitative method (statistics), and I believe also in other fields. However, saying that sociology is not a genuine science I don't agree with, it does not have to follow positivism to be a genuine science. The opportunity to look past positivism is an extraordinary resource in sociology, it is a great science.

Quote from Wikipedia, the relevant parts in bold:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-positivism

1. How can one claim to have knowledge of the real world if one does not use actual data obtained from the real world?

2. What is your definition of "science" if it allows for the rejection of empiricism and the scientific method? Could astrology be included in your definition of "science"?

I will accept that making use of actual statistics is more empirical than the other way. However I cannot a claim to knowledge for something that cannot be demonstrated, pure logic does not guarantee that a conclusion will be true. For example,

All elephants are pink,
Ellie is an elephant,
Therefore Ellie is pink

is valid logical reasoning but the conclusion is false because the premise is false. It's called the GIGO principle, Garbage In Garbage Out. The only way to make sure the premises are true is to make use of real world data, and because multiple explanations can usually be used to explain the same data, the theory's predictions must be falsifiable so they can be checked and tested too. Pure mathematics is an exception because it is based on abstract ideas rather than real world explanations. In general, if you can't show it, you don't know it, it isn't knowledge.

academics must reject empiricism and the scientific method in the conduct of social research

Wikipedia is very very scary. I don't know if this is correct.. There is little reason to trust it, I have seen altered truths too many times before. Antipositivism seems like the complete counterpart to positivism (obviously), I know the subject is more nuanced than that. I have not experienced sociology as a study that in any case reject empiricism and the scientific method, I can't think of anything else than this being very rare.

Your question 1. That never happens... Never. There is a path in sociology that is experimental theory, this part receives a hostile attitude from most sociologists and academics as far as what I have experienced. Though it contains some great points, viewpoints and thoughts, it is a resource, but not that accepted, not relevant.

That hostile attitude toward experiment is exactly what I have a problem with. Without testing or being able to test a particular theory, there is no way to know if it's the right one.

No no. I meant experimental as in unorthodox and not by any book or by any laws. Not by an experiment. What I was talking about was experimental theory as something that does not have any laws, but are speculative thinking that are more free from rules. This may be language issues on my side, sorry.

To summarize: this is rare. The testing and experimenting as you say, is the normal.

I guess I misunderstood you then. I suppose the post-modernism nonsense and the so-called "science wars" had coloured my perceptions. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Though this has gone way off-topic from the topic of the thread.