flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek) (12/30/84)
From: Ken Arndt > "It is important to realize that science does not make assertions about > ultimate questions - about the riddles of existence, or about man's task > in this world. This has often been well understood. But some great > scientists, and many lesser ones, have misunderstood the situation. The > fact that science cannot make any pronouncements about ethical principles > has been misinterpreted as indicating that there are not such principles, > while in fact the search for truth presupposes ethics." > - Karl Popper,( the rock star??) , DIALECTICA 32:342 From: Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam > This makes sense to me, but why does "the search for truth [presuppose] > ethics"? It figures Moffett would pick on the one thing that Popper got right. The search for truth presupposes that knowledge is valuable; that scientific inquiry is worth doing. It also presupposes that there is something which we ought to believe -- and believing is an action. And science can make pronouncements about ethics, contra Popper; the health sciences can and should deal with human benefit and harm (what constitues a benefit or harm is a value judgement), and behavioral sciences can (at least in principle) indicate what actions one would perform if one were rational, informed, and free (i.e., what actions are right!). From: Rich Rosen > The use of absolute right/wrong was used in the context of absolute > good/evil, in a moral sense and not an observational sense. And I'm > sure Paul [Dubois, I think it was--pvt] knew that when he wrote what he > did. (Since many of recent articles addressed this point.) Can this dichotomy between the moral and the observational hold any water? Can there be -- as I think Rosen wants to suggest -- an "absolute right/ wrong" in science without implying a similar cognitivity for ethics? --The aspiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink (until 1/11, then back to ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 )