RE: Can Science Tell Us Right From Wrong?

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Can Science Tell Us Right From Wrong?

in philosophy •  8 years ago 

Maybe I will download the video in the middle of the night.

The area they ignore is metaphysics.
They can't see it, so it doesn't exist... and by extrapolation, doesn't matter.

However, right and wrong come completely from the metaphysical side.
So, when ignored, you get really stupid results.

Lets compare nutrition.
Current science is all about calories. Science was pretty convinced that calories were all that mattered.
Along comes steel rollers, and suddenly white flour becomes cheap and abundant.
And, people started falling down in the street.
Although white flour has calories, it doesn't have any nutrition.
So, when you go to the store you see "Enriched White Flour".

There are people who are working with other spectrology equipment who are measuring nutrition values of food. Fresh burger > McDs burger.
Raw milk > pasteurized homogenized milk.
And, what they are doing is called "unscientific."

It is a similar construct about right and wrong.
What needs to be measured, science has thrown out.

A baby needs love to survive. No love/not enough love and the baby will die.
But, has science even tried to measure the levels of love?

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

But, has science even tried to measure the levels of love?

Yes, I'd say it has:

And, what they are doing is called "unscientific."

By who? I drink raw milk, and I think there are valid, rational reasons for me to do so, though I could be wrong. Nutrition is something (like science) which is constantly improving and adjusting as our understanding of the natural world improves via our technology for measuring things. It's usually a step forward, though there are certainly steps sideways and even steps backwards. Fat used to be bad, now we know healthy fats are good and our understanding of cholesterol was incomplete, etc. It's easy for someone to get cynical about it, especially when government and lobby interests push agendas backed by bad science. Those with a longer term view, I think, view things more accurately as a progression forward. Steven Pinker's books do a good job of this, I think.

Metaphysics and health are both discussed by the panel. There are parts you will agree with and parts you won't. I think it's a balanced discussion.

As to metaphysics, to call that half the universe is odd to me. The universe is a physical thing. Metaphysics is a word created by conscious homo sapiens in an attempt to categorize concepts which make up our consciousness. Yes, it's important, but like thought, it's something we're still exploring in a physical sense. I think some day we will better understand it as the science of the mind progresses forward.

Do we know why babies need love to survive? Not that I know of, but it is likely that there is a psychological and/or biological reason. My first guess would be that it has to do with hormones that are produced when others show affection that are necessary for a child's survival.

The first google result has some interesting perspectives related to hormones, oxytocin, body heat regulation, being calm, and brain development.