Fact - value distinction

Why do contemporary scientists always assume that ethics, morality and politics have easy clear cut answers similar to positivistic science?

I know we can argue about what science really is and so forth, but I just think that very often the New Atheist who are scientists, and pop-scientists in general think that ethical and political problems are as easy to solve as creating facts in a lab.

The absolute state of STEM.

Because they think empiricism can be applied to everything where there is a right and a wrong not shades of grey

Based Black Science Man, philosophers and historians btfo

>NdGT
>(((scientist)))

He is smart for a negro.

He's smart, but not very wise.

His IQ is about 100, which is very high for his race.

Most armed conflict happened because different groups wanted control over land though

Empiricism may not always be useful for distinguishing right and wrong, but it can be used to separate better from worse.

Yeah, but that's because these groups valued land. So it's about values, not facts, and yet plebs like NDT probably wants it to be as autisticly easy as establishing scientific facts.

Because they aren't philosophers and most of us do truly believe that given the proper info people will act in better and more harmonious ways. Of course we aren't good at arguing this since our persuasion usually comes from evidence instead of logic.

Back to pol, fuckwit

>most of us do truly believe that given the proper info people will act in better and more harmonious ways

How can you be so sure? World War 2 was just 75 years ago, and it's not like humanity has stopped going to war the last 3 generations.

Why sjws are so disrespectful and impolite. No wonder they are universally despised.

>contemporary scientists
Might as well be talking about the first cunt off the streets when not specifically addressing said scientist's specialty.
Just like the average person lacks the education to grasp the complexity of physics, chemistry, etc, so do scientists lack the education to grasp the complexity of humanistic issues.

If you are a Kantian utilitarian maybe. Other systems of morality exist.

>so do scientists lack the education to grasp the complexity of humanistic issues.

Good for them.

Ideology
Positivism, and capitalism rule the world now.

Stop posting this anti-semitic crap.
Back to /pol/

>Kantian utilitarian

>If you are a Kantian utilitarian maybe.
>Kantian utilitarian

You don't seem to get it. Right and wrong are the domain of morality. Better and worse, in terms of costs and benefits, can be assessed largely empirically. That can inform a moral decision, but you're kind of just proving NDT's point.

>other types of utilitarians can’t exist

>Better and worse, in terms of costs and benefits, can be assessed largely empirically.
is wiping out the Jewish race better or worse for the greatest number of people in the long run?

The better of course.

this

>literally contradictory philosophical positions
>can coexist
>what is cognitive dissonance

...

What are the costs and benefits? If you can, try to be serious.

100 is pretty high for a black person, objectively

It's 2 standard deviantions above their average (70). It's like an IQ of 130 for a normal human.

>anti-semitic
There was nothing antisemitic in his posts, Schlomo.

back to Africa, Tyrone

It was implied that since capitalists rule the world, the jews rule the world. It's always the same anti semitic conspiracy theories.

>It was implied that since capitalists rule the world, the jews rule the world.
what is this projection shit?

What the fuck? He had an image of Zizek you retard. He's a Marxist. And yeah, Jews do rule the world.

The absolute state of false flagging.

Its not easy, but there are scientific answers we can answer in those domains.

Neil Tyson is bit bankrupt on philosophical depth, so he wouldn't be a good representation of this argument. Sam Harris would make a good image for this effort to change the minds of people.

Back to Scandinavia, Cletus

>Jews
>Soviet Union
Pick one.

>Back to Scandinavia, Cletus
You should have said Britain, mate.

>Neil Tyson is bit bankrupt on philosophical depth, so he wouldn't be a good representation of this argument. Sam Harris would make a good image for this effort to change the minds of people.

Reported for blatant racism.

Most bolshevik leaders were jew.

Better to let the meat mechanics do the late-stage dabbling.

>anglo-saxons snowniggers are originally from Britain

As I said, it's anti semite.

Sombody with the name cletus is probably scots-Irish.

>but there are scientific answers we can answer in those domains.

Like what? All those answers depend upon hypotheticals.

Isn't that meme, although Jews were disproportionately represented they didn't form a majoirty? At any rate, Stalinism as well as the USSR post-Stalin was obviously incompatible with international Jewry.

Could you provide a source for that?

>ask a serious question on Veeky Forums
>entire thread derailed by /pol/acks

As a group of people who is so opposed to immigration, you guys sure don't know how to stop emigrating to other boards in order to shitpost.

Moral questions aren't hypothetical, they're very much grounded in reality.

The bases for ethics and morals are simple. To stop/reduce suffering and to better ourselves/others. If you accept this axiom, then finding a moral/ethical system using science is very much doable. In most cases, very easy, in some cases, bit difficult due to lack of depth analysis, but overall, we can achieve a gradual pattern for which we can draw a reasonable and concise solution. Suppose we have two actions, one is beating someone up and the other is hugging them and comforting them. We can scientifically analyze each results and find out which is better/moral/ethical action. We can test out lab conditions and measure their brain activities, we can measure their stress level, we can measure their pain threshold, etc. We'd find a very conclusive answer.

In the past, we have simply stated, science can't understand love, art, language, pain, suffering, etc. But now we have a much better grasp of the brain and human behaviors, so we can make a very reasonable conclusion based on an agreed upon set/s of axiom. Using the above two simple actions and expanding it to every possible human action, we can chart a graph which would compare each action against others. Ofcourse that's a pointless task, but the system is there in place for a rudimentary and elementary analysis. Over time, this sort of research/work can become more and more precise with artificial intelligence offloading all of the scenarios and drawing a reasonable and rational conclusion.

>The bases for ethics and morals are simple. To stop/reduce suffering and to better ourselves/others.

Sam Harris go to sleep.

and this is how we end in a brave new world dystopia.

>If you accept this axiom

That's literally the point of my writing "hypothetical".

Hypothetical imperatives aren't sufficient, following Kant, to establish moral rules.

I can say: "If you want to reduce suffering in the world, you should do XYZ", but this doesn't change the fact that it's a choice to want to reduce suffering in the first place.

So yes, if you accept Harris' axiom of well-being, most of what he says follows, but he hasn't demonstrated that this axiom is *really* what morality is about.

A great deal of armed conflict also comes from two different groups believing nearly the exact same thing. For example, two or more separate groups might decide that controlling a particular strait or peninsula is strategically vital, and then they end up going to war over who gets to control it.

It's only a choice to psychopaths. Almost every sane person wants to reduce suffering but in no way does that mean they are dedicated enough to it to do something meaningful

> reduce suffering but in no way does that mean they are dedicated enough to it to do something meaningful

why?
to end a life is so easy.

obviously, in your example, they disagree over who should be the owner of that strategic location

>It's only a choice to psychopaths.

This is just a copout.

So when you discipline your child by grounding them you are being psychopathic? Grounding a child for some wrong they did, obviously causes emotional distress, so doing it is counter do Harris' moral axiom.

I'm shocked with the antisemitism on this tnread.

You seemed to miss the point.
You're grounding the child to teach him about the consequences of his actions, so that he may later on take responsibility and better fit within society.
Overall, the idea is still to increase wellbeing and reduce suffering in the long run.

So really what you're saying is that Harris is just a garden-variety consequentialist, and that shit like torture can be acceptable as long as you manipulated the factors so as to make it seem like you're doing it to increase well-being for most people.

nope

Science isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, fag. Maybe if you had ever solved a difficult problem in your life, you'd know the difference between not easy and impossible.

Cletus = Appalachian hillbilly name. Appalachian hillbillies = Scots-Irish, not Anglo.

Even psychopaths can understand that reduction of suffering is a good thing. They may not "feel" it, but they can understand the effects of such a world.

So guy's idea about reduction of suffering not being a moral/ethical basis is just intellectual dishonesty play with relativism garbage. "DUDE KILLING IS SAME AS NOT KILLING"

If that's so, i stand corrected.

Actually he's right,it's the phenomenon of Ulster Scot mass migration and high birth rates. Conquest of a Continent.

I mean here
That you're right,but plenty of anglos in the area too

>What are the costs and benefits?
Costs and benefits for who exactly?
Nazis or Jews?

For Germany.

Yes, simplistic statements that ignore reality like in the OP are very helpful. Very objective.

>being this upset