Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Of course science is a tool. And yes, the atom bomb has demonstrated great potential for destruction. But there's no reason why science can't determine the values we seek. It could certainly do a better job than centuries old books that were written before we knew anything close to what we know now about reality. I just have to face-palm and laugh if people suggest that ancient, barbaric books are the best method of determining human values.
I think in general western philosophy with all of its roots has attained some rather important values regarding the sovereignty of the individual and the human rights accorded to them, the judgment of a person by their character and merit rather than by their immutable characteristics or by the sins of whatever "collective" you could ascribe a person to. The idea that each human has a certain endemic moral worth.
Hard science and the social sciences (though the latter are rather corrupt now IMO) can provide you certain courses of action or rules regarding how to uphold the things that are valued, but can't really provide that initial value judgment.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
That's why "dogma" is the enemy, not "religion" per se. If you want to worship a deistic entity, feel free, but any unchanging beliefs are the true enemy.
My general view culturally is that I consider myself a traditionalist rather than a conservative or progressive, in the sense that I view certain core traditions as something of sorting mechanisms that effectively select for value, from which progress in a moral, political, and economic sense spring.
So things like a social fabric that aims towards virtue, the family, the market, the discourse, the scientific method, individual rights, etc.
And I believe the dogma surrounding those core traditions must be updated to either better reflect the value of those traditions, or to adjust to the different needs and capacities of the modern day. For example In my view the presumption of individual inalienable rights in the declaration of independence was an amazing principle, but the dogma around it had to change to include women and minorities.
In my view those who I would consider culturally conservative are too rigidly dogmatic, about gay marriage, about the war on drugs, further in the past about the black and women's rights, etc.
And those who I would consider culturally progressive don't have enough respect for the accumulated wisdom of all of previous humanity or the mechanisms which built the state of prosperity they currently enjoy. The assumption of "Everyone in the past was just some ****ing idiot, but I know better as a modern person and can radically remake society in some socially planned way and assume that everything I was handed was dogshit." I would say that that's fundamentally the difference between a left-winger who says "I'm a capitalist because markets have generated a lot of prosperity, I just think it should be better distributed" and a left-winger who says "Captialism is on the way OUT"
So for example, take the institution of the family. I think it's deeply important, I think the commitment two people make to each other in marriage is a deeply important and civilizing commitment that requires mutual responsibility, loyalty, generosity, self-control, and mutual support. I think it's a good thing for people to pursue and certainly if you look at the relationship between certain social ills and single motherhood it's clear that parents are deeply important for a child.
So those who I would label socially progressive for the sake of discussion might say that the oppression of gay people proves that family values suck, some might go so far as to say that marriage and monogamous commitment are outdated and that the endeavor of human sexuality should be some laissez faire casual everyone ****s everyone endeavor, no sexual activity is more productive than any other etc. etc. Which I disagree with. That view lacks what I believe to be a necessary respect for such an obviously important institution.
At the same time, those I would label socially conservative for the sake of discussion don't want the gays to get married or adopt kids. I disagree with that, both from the perspective of someone who believes in liberty, and because as someone who believes in say the family values I explained above, I think it's a social good for gay people to be able to pursue the commitment of marriage, and for more kids to be adopted and have parents.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, check out that last video I posted. It has a simulation that is trippy as f#ck.
Originally posted by BackFire
This is so cool.
definitely warrants an interstellar rewatch. however they did seem to miss the detail about the ring being way brighter on one side.
*edit* TIL they knew, but took artistic license https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing/
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Science can do that only to a limited extent. Science cannot in and of itself produce a value judgment, but it can produce methods that service a value judgment.
Right, so if you're talking about morality, you shouldn't require more of it than you do any other discipline. Take the health field. The starting point is that health is preferred to illness. You have to have that starting point. So with morality, why can't you just say that not suffering is preferred to suffering?
Here's a good conversation on this topic...
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
definitely warrants an interstellar rewatch. however they did seem to miss the detail about the ring being way brighter on one side.*edit* TIL they knew, but took artistic license https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing/
Yeah, I might be interested to watch the black hole part again, but I hated that movie. Definitely not sitting through the stupid corn fields again.
Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Oh no, we are back to that. Just know I am greener than you, it must kill you.
Green dick measuring. Amusing.