@abbenm Mmm, I was being facetious when I said it was bleak, I don't actually think it's that bleak. XD

@abbenm @Angle but shouldn't we examine the values embedded in the science first?

@Angle @abbenm though my views on everything are kind of weird

@a_breakin_glass @Angle but I suspect when you say values of science maybe you have something different in mind than what I just mentioned.

And weird views are awesome. I think most talked about morality is incredibly stagnant, so probably the weirder the better as long as weirdness means deviation from the status quo of how morality is talked about on the internet.

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass I too like weird views. They're not always right, but they're usually interesting. :P

@a_breakin_glass @Angle
I don't know if there's a correct order of operations here, some sort of PEMDAS of values, but sure. You should want the way you're doing science to withstand whatever critical scrutiny can be applied to it.

When I think "values" of science, I think truth seeking, robust connection to evidence, clarity, and a range of practical considerations about how to shape institutions that account for human flaws etc

@abbenm @Angle I sort of understand that, but I don't view science as a culturally neutral entity

@Angle and also science, or at least scientists, are somewhat ethically non-considerate (i.e. what effects will this have on society)

@a_breakin_glass I guess a lot of it comes down to semantics. Specifically, what you mean by science. Do you mean the body of knowledge created by science? The people who created said body of knowledge? The mechanisms for extending said body of knowledge?

The point I had made was that the process of science can answer material questions, like "Whats the orbit of jupiter?' or "What are the likely social repercussions of a government policy to harvest the organs of redheads born on the fifth day of any month in the year 1987?" It can't answer questions like "Is it good to be alive?" or "Is it good to ask questions?"

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass I mean, I like thos evalues, but while they might be associated with science, they're not created by it. Rather, they come from the same place all ethics do, and just happen to hang around the same places that science does, so to speak. XD

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
I agree with all of that, in a way. Ethics comes from the natural world. The practice of science doesn't create ethics anymore than it creates biology or psychology or any other natural phenomena. Same with the values of science, to the extent we want to think of it as having values. It doesn't create them, they just are what they are.

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass Science doesn;t create natural phenomena, but it does explain them. And yes, it can explain ethics in much the same way. That's basically what game theory is. But the fundamental question of "Is this good or bad?" is not a scientific one.

@Angle @a_breakin_glass the fact value distinction is a popular one. But it is, just like all moral views, the fact/value distinction must be subjected to analysis, compared with alternatives theories such as moral naturalism, analyzed for its logical integrity, testing to see how well it explains the world, etc.

It's a meta-ethical posture toward the subject of values, rather than a definitional starting point.

@abbenm @Angle eh. I'm not a fan of moral realism in general.

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
Richard Joyce has a wonderful book called The Evolution of morality which explains the problems with taking an assumed fact value distinction as a starting point, rather than one view among many that needs to be argued for and defended.

And Richard Joyce isn't even a moral naturalist! He just happens to be an error theorist who's frustrated with some of the common arguments against moral naturalism.

@abbenm @a_breakin_glass Hmm, thats sounds fascinating. I'll add it to my reading list! XD

@a_breakin_glass @abbenm Though even there, it sounds like you start with the moral axiom of "We should uphold our natural morality" :P

@Angle @a_breakin_glass
And therein lies my weakness. If I am indeed treating it as an unquestionable axiom, then I'm not fulfilling my obligation to argue for it.

Moral naturalism only ought to be believed if it can establish itself as a reasonable explanation, without begging any questions.

It can be wrong, for instance, if the variability of different moral beliefs can't be explained. Which many people believe to be the case.

@abbenm @Angle
>Ethics comes from the natural world.

imho, it comes from people, but eh. unlike biology, it isn't a way of explaining a natural thing, and nor is it a way of understanding something as psychology does.

@a_breakin_glass @abbenm I mean, it sorta comes from the natural world. We do have ethical instincts, like an innate aversion to violence, and the like. But I don't think thats all there is to it. We also have all sorts of learned and constructed ethics, and laws predicated on ethics, and the like. :/

@Angle @abbenm
>We do have ethical instincts, an innate aversion to violence

this is probably one of the few ethical questions that you might be able to solve with silence, except it'd be either horribly unethical or retrospective studies of feral children.

@a_breakin_glass @abbenm Eh, I'd say wait until we have a better understanding of the brain and just study neural formation. Though that might take a bit. XD

@Angle @a_breakin_glass

To me, an important clue is this: scientific beliefs are *also* culturally transmitted.

Oftentimes understanding some aspect of science, really truly understanding, involves a personal journey, using different analogies and conceptual until it finally makes sense.

Looks a lot like the personal journey we all go on to understand morality. What we create is a framework for personally navigating through it

@a_breakin_glass @Angle
Should be "and conceptual frameworks"

@abbenm @Angle the same could be said of many things. though one could consider the beliefs of science as criticisable, as we're on that topic.

@a_breakin_glass @Angle

I agree. The same can be said of many things. And the methods, values, assumptions, etc of science are always open to criticism and anyone who says otherwise can go drink warm Diet Mountain Dew that was left out overnight.

@a_breakin_glass @Angle

Yeah, the view that it comes from people is a popular one. I think the distinction between descriptive and normative forms of morality is important.

Descriptive, refers to the psychological process of how beliefs are formed into transmitted. Normative is about what (if anything) exist over and above the process of forming beliefs.

@Angle
Without going too into it, (1:38 in the morn) the biggest thing you need to address is the *why* the fundamental reason why we exist as a society and why we have a drive to be such even if many want to be outside of it. Remind me later and I'll look at it more.

@StripedMonkey Mmm, yeah that's gonna be a big part of the chapters on humans, ethics, and morality. I'll be sure to be very thorough with it though. XD

@Angle @StripedMonkey one could argue whether we have a drive to be such, and if so, should it be overcome?

@a_breakin_glass @Angle @StripedMonkey

You can definitely go into where atheists get their ethics since it isn't from a bible ( which often have terrible ethics in my opinion.) It gets tiring to hear people say that without religion they would want to go do crimes. Now while I've got you here pardon this but I highly recommend you listen to Tim Minchin singing white wine in the Sun. It is a song with a similar message to your book.

@generica @Angle @StripedMonkey of course, different atheists get their ethics from different places, so doing that may be complicated