Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
Goodness, that is some serious attitude. Yes, I understood your article title. My criticism was that involving science in the discussion of the topic as a whole doesn't contribute very much since the point of contention is at a much higher level of abstraction.
The notion that how something "is" determines what it "should" do is predicated on the idea that objects have defined functions irrespective of perception, which is entirely incorrect. Humans perceive based upon utility first and how something actually "is" second, which means that we're fundamentally operating within a value structure any time we do something. More succinctly, human perception imprints a value structure on the world.
Science can provide additional information for making decisions, but the decisions themselves are made based upon a hierarchy of values. Here's a ridiculous example to showcase what I mean: you have an option to eat either a candy bar or an apple, but not both—which do you choose? The science of nutrition informs us that the apple is the healthier option in every respect, so does that mean one *should* select it for consumption over the candy bar? Not necessarily, because it depends on what you value. If you consider the candy bar provides more pleasure and you consider the pleasure of the consumption to be of higher value—at least within that moment—then selecting the candy bar makes the most sense. So while science may have provided more information to use when making the decision, it's your value structure that determines whether that information affects your decision.
Moreover, science itself operates within a hierarchy of values. Science is the primary mechanism for ascertaining observable truth of the world, and as you said, we engage it in it because we find it of value. More specifically, we find truth itself to be of incredibly high value. If human beings didn't value truth, then there would never have been the advent of science. If there is no value in something, then why do it? That's the most fundamental question to the discussion. If a hierarchy of values is a necessary condition for science, then science cannot itself be used to determine anything within that hierarchy of values—it's impossible. That's how the meta-logical framework that science operates within works, which itself exists within a particular metaphysic. If you reject the metaphysic or even the meta-logic, science goes out the window with it (this is Modus Tollens).
Also, I suggested you look into the ideas I mentioned both because they're too detailed to leave in a Substack comment and because the discussion itself is not meant to be a debate. If the ideas sound interesting at all to someone, then looking into them for oneself provides a more valuable understanding. It wasn't to be condescending—it's to encourage people to research for their own interests if they desire.
———
I'll leave it at this: if there are no intrinsic values, then why should human life have any value? Why should truth have any value? Why should anyone care about either of those things? Those aren't simple questions, but they're necessary ones because you must start with the abstract idea first.
You already said you don’t know the answers to the questions involved in the abortion issue, so I see no reason bothering to answer your ignorant comments, especially since the points you did make were wrong.
Skepticism is a self-refuting philosophy. Subjectivism is the crudest and lowest of logical fallacies. Pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook is laughable.
Your “ideas” reek of all three.
> claims I'm being condescending
> proceeds to be condescending
Aight, good luck then, dude. You'll need it.
You get what you give…and deserve.