esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (02/19/85)
[Apologies to R. Rudner for the subject line] As the late R. Rudner [of good ol' Wahington University!] pointed out, in his article of the same title as my subject line, science crucially involves the acceptance of hypotheses. This occurs when the evidence is *strong enough* (usually, complete certainty is not possible). How strong is "strong enough"? Accepting a hypothesis is a *decision*, with some chance of error. In order to make such a decision, what is required is a value judgement. Rudner pointed out that if the consequences of error are grave, the evidence required is correspondingly greater. (Consider the hypothesis: "this drug is safe for human beings".) A number of objections have been offered; none are convincing. Some suggest that the scientist's job is not to accept hypotheses, but to tell the decisionmaker the probability and let him decide if it is high enough. But this won't do: in order to make such a report the scientist has to *accept the hypothesis that the probability is so-and-so*. Others suggest that the value judgements involved should be strictly related to the cognitive goals of science. But even supposing that such a distinction can be made, why should other types of value judgements be excluded? [For a good discussion of these issues, see *Rational Decision and Causality* by E. Eells. Rudner's article can be found in *Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science*, ed. E.D. Klemke et. al.] If Rudner is right, value judgements are a determining factor in what hypotheses are accepted as scientific knowledge. Which was the point of my original question: >>>>Can there be -- as I think Rosen wants to suggest -- an "absolute right/ >>>>wrong" in science without implying a similar *cognitivity* for ethics? >>> "Scientific" right/wrong simply consists of that which is true as >>> opposed to that which isn't. "Moral" right and wrong are clouded by >>> the issue of who is determining the rightness and wrongness and on >>> what basis. [Rich Rosen's response -- to which I replied:] >> How are "moral" issues "clouded" in a way that "scientific" (a >> completely separate, non-overlapping realm?) ones aren't? Take a look >> at a lot of scientific controversies and tell me that there is no "issue >> of who is determining [correctness] and [incorrectness] and on what >> basis"! "But," you're retorting, "there's a true/false (i.e., >> *cognitivity*) to science which *has no counterpart* in ethics." Oh >> really? Care to prove that there's such a *difference*? > I thought I had, if not proven it, shown facets of it. What about rain in > a certain region (good for some farmers who've gone dry, bad for others for > whom it would cause a river overflow)? Sorry, but good and evil are always > in the eye of the beholder, and to think otherwise is nothing more than > wishful thinking. The rain is *beneficial to* one farmer and *harmful to* the other; it is not good (simpliciter) and bad (simpliciter) at the same time. And these benefits and harms are a matter of genuine *fact*, not just "in the eye of the beholder". People can be and often are (I often am) mistaken about what's really good or bad for them. AND, as you admit, > there is a notion of a "common good", that which is "good" to a whole > community. So, I don't think that you have shown that "'moral' issues are clouded by the issue of who is doing the determining" in a way that "scientific" ones aren't. > But, still, ALL these notions of good and evil have no bearing on factual, > objective rightness/wrongness of the way the universe physically is. Ahem. Benefit and harm, good and evil, are *part of* the way the universe physically is. (!) (For example: put your hand in a flame. Now there is a harm, which is part of the physical universe.) And right and wrong are concepts that can be understood through reference to things about the physical universe (to wit: an action is right in a situation iff it is what the agent would do if rational, informed, and free). --Your friendly neighborhood "ethical naturalist", Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Don't hit that 'r' key! Send any mail to this address, not the sender's.