Ti, introverted logic - What is true and not true in a statement?

[Myst]

Myst:
The word should is ethical reasoning...
I can break the reasoning down further if you want.
The people who first put science together had to ask themselves: should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?
This ethical imperative "should" is part of a larger framework of similar statements which together prescribe a methodology - the scientific method. The methodology defines what science is - what the purpose of science is, how it behaves...
The methodology gives guidelines for how scientists should do science. Scientists follow the methodology to progress science and preserve the integrity of the body of knowledge... that is the ethical justification for following the method.

"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence - to preserve the integrity of the body of information and progress science" <- that is an ethical statement.
"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence" is a deontological ethic.
"To preserve the integrity of the body of information" is a utilitarian ethic.

Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.

You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...

(Beyond, of course, not violating basic ethics with experimentation blah blah. Such constraints are needed but that's another issue and is not about the way of thinking in science.)

Now, of course, it's possible to link science to human ethics too if you want to have science to serve humanity and I have nothing against this purpose at all (I actually agree with it as long as it does not affect the above type of guidelines of course) and this is even a nice example of logic and ethics interfacing, but it's not required for the above to work.

Just like mathematics also has no ethics in its logic. If you wish to find an ethical purpose for use of mathematics as a science, that's something else.

[Tearsofaclown]

Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.

You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...

(Beyond, of course, not violating basic ethics with experimentation blah blah. Such constraints are needed but that's another issue and is not about the way of thinking in science.)

Now, of course, it's possible to link science to human ethics too if you want to have science to serve humanity and I have nothing against this purpose at all (I actually agree with it as long as it does not affect the above type of guidelines of course) and this is even a nice example of logic and ethics interfacing, but it's not required for the above to work.

Just like mathematics also has no ethics in its logic. If you wish to find an ethical purpose for use of mathematics as a science, that's something else.

I think one could program a computer to make ethical judgements. Kant was basically a computer who based ethics on reason.

They can be based on ethics. Utility is a kind of truth. If religion helps a person with their life, it is logical for them. It helps them.

And James was a radical empiricist. Your experiences are empirical. Your personal experiences. You experienced them. They are a product of your experience. He said experience is "double barreled" this way. We cannot separate empirical outside happenings from the meaning our mind makes out of them.

James' factual statement is that our experience isn't just a stream of data, but a complex process that's full of meaning. We see objects in terms of what they mean to us and we see causal connections between phenomena.

Hume said something similar. Causation is not real. It is a psychological product of man. Take 2 billiards balls. Two objects. We smash them together. There are still only 2 objects. Hume says we create a 3rd thing called causation. But the only empirical things on the table are the balls. Not the theory we wrap around them. Or an apple falling from a tree. There is just the apple, the tree, and the ground. No gravity. Strictly empirically speaking. We create abstractions to explain empirical things but the abstractions are not empirical themselves.

btw, this stance, according to Jung is Te. Ti users believe the idea is the actual thing. Nominalism vs realism. Jung broke down Ti and Te that way. Plato would be a realist. He thinks the idea exists perfect somewhere. Hume takes a Te position. That these are just abstract placeholders and nothing more. Useful fictions.

Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material. Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.


And to Plato and others, science cannot be true because truth never changes. Heidegger said all science and facts shine in a borrowed light. What is true today could be false tomorrow. Whereas 2+2=4 is always true and nothing physical in the universe can touch it. It exists in an abstract sphere.

Nietzsche nailed this too. Truth is a sum of human relations. Truth is a custom. A tradition. Like Rorty said.


What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

-Nietzsche

[purplehearts]

Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.

You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...

Myst, the ethic IS "to get the most refined personal understanding". That is a utilitarian ethic. Why should we strive for the most refined personal understanding? Why SHOULD we? That is ethical.
Why should we ask the question "what shape is the earth" at all? Why not just continue living like apes, not even considering the question... without science, experiencing the world in a more direct manner? Why refine our understanding? Why should we progress a body of scientific knowledge?
It is an ethical assumption at the foundation of science, no question about it.

[Myst]

Myst, the ethic IS "to preserve the integrity of the body of scientific information, to get the most refined personal understanding". That is is a utilitarian ethic. Why should we strive for the most refined personal understanding? Why SHOULD we? This is ethical.
Why should we ask the question "what shape is the earth" at all? Why not just continue living like apes, not even considering the question... without science, experiencing the world in a more direct manner? Why refine our understanding? Why should we progress a body of scientific knowledge?
It is an ethical assumption at the foundation of science, no question about it.

Intellectual curiosity. No "shoulds" in that.

Depends the context. Wittgenstein said the extent of my language is the extent of my world. Imagine a society whose language consists only of military orders. That is the extent of that world. Those statements are true WITHIN it. Truth is contextual. My favorite quote on truth is "a statement that pays its way". Meaning it goes along with the rules. If you admit certain truths, you are allowed access.

It is a kind of bullshit currency. If you go along with a certain group's jargon you have paid your way with that group. If I go in the Socionics forum and go along with what that group thinks Se is, I have paid my way.

"Truth is merely a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way." -Richard Rorty.

Wow... no. I'm not into that stuff.

I think one could program a computer to make ethical judgements. Kant was basically a computer who based ethics on reason.

LOL yeah about Kant.

They can be based on ethics. Utility is a kind of truth. If religion helps a person with their life, it is logical for them. It helps them.

Jungian rational, I guess.

btw, this stance, according to Jung is Te. Ti users believe the idea is the actual thing. Nominalism vs realism. Jung broke down Ti and Te that way. Plato would be a realist. He thinks the idea exists perfect somewhere. Hume takes a Te position. That these are just abstract placeholders and nothing more. Useful fictions.

Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material. Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.

And to Plato and others, science cannot be true because truth never changes. Heidegger said all science and facts shine in a borrowed light. What is true today could be false tomorrow. Whereas 2+2=4 is always true and nothing physical in the universe can touch it. It exists in an abstract sphere.

Well... to me it exists in the mind but it almost feels like it's "outside" somehow. Because of its objectivity... that is, it does not matter what I personally feel, that cannot change it. And so I have an ideal picture of the objective truth that does exist in that way you describe it for Plato's ideas. But since it's an ideal I can only try and get closer to it always. It's a very uplifting vision though...

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

-Nietzsche

More eyerolling.

[purplehearts]

Your statement here says:

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine.

that we should strive to get the most refined understanding possible. Very simple. This is literally your point.

Intellectual curiosity. No "shoulds" in that.

Of course there is, can you read? I am not interested in repeating myself and going back and fourth with you over this, it's a simple point honestly.

Not everyone is interested in the pursuit of intellectual ideas. Only a minority of people are. Infact if you tried to explain the concept of scientific methodology to an outback tribal person he wouldn't be capable of seeing the value of it; alot of its value is grounded in society, in progressive and collective thought.

There are more ways of using the intellect than strict adherence to scientific methodology, anyway. For example, you can think about things which you personally experience... you don't need proof to justify your perceptions to yourself.

[Myst]

Your statement here says:

that we should strive to get the most refined understanding possible. Very simple. This is literally your point.

No, that was not my point. You reframed it from your own point of view while missing an important part of my point. Which is that intellectual curiosity for the most refined understanding does not need to follow a guideline of such "shoulds" to exist as an active thought process, the logic of the process works without having to prioritize by ethical ideas for making guidelines.

Of course there is, can you read? I am not interested in repeating myself and going back and fourth with you over this, it's a simple point honestly.

Keep the personal tone out of this. I'm not interested in discussing things with butthurt people that cannot even stop to think and consider that maybe they missed something of my point.

Not everyone is interested in the pursuit of intellectual ideas. Only a minority of people are. Infact if you tried to explain the concept of scientific methodology to an outback tribal person he wouldn't be capable of seeing the value of it; alot of its value is grounded in society, in progressive and collective thought.

There are more ways of using the intellect than strict adherence to scientific methodology, anyway. For example, you can think about things which you personally experience... you don't need proof to justify your perceptions to yourself.

I don't think I ever said that everyone is interested in this. Or that even everyone would have to be interested in it. Also, I didn't say or imply that the intellect can only be used for science.

If I did not make it clear before: I was not against your point that the importance and place of science as part of society can be viewed through ethical values, I was talking about your other point that the scientific way of thinking can only work by ethical guidelines, where I do disagree, because of how the thinking processes for scientific understanding in themselves don't need any of the ethical values. Actually, it's even more than just not needing them, introducing ethical values just constrains and hinders this process but of course I don't disagree that we have to do that sometimes, see ethical guidelines for experimentation.

So the original statement by you about how "ethics transforms seamlessly into logic" is a bit overly idealistic, it's not always that simple. It is a good topic though as to how to optimize the process of interfacing the two.

[purplehearts]

No, that was not my point. You reframed it from your own point of view while missing an important part of my point.

It is what I think everyone who reads your sentence will take away from it.

intellectual curiosity for the most refined understanding does not need to follow a guideline of such "shoulds" to exist as an active thought process, the logic of the process works without having to prioritize by ethical ideas for making guidelines.

I don't even see what your point is. You simply have said: "intellectual curiosity does not have a should behind it", basically... which is just simply wrong. But we're talking about the scientific method and now you've switched the conversation to a general sense of intellectual curiosity that people have... why? I don't see how this is even relevant. Besides that, it's just another ethic that we should have an intellectual curiosity for the things of science - not everyone does, and why should they?

I mean, even if I accept this notion of intellectual curiosity (which is a natural ethic) I explained that there are multiple ways of using the intellect, and of being intellectually curious. We are talking about scientific methodology. The scientific method is a set of guidelines.

Regardless you've just switched to a natural ethical argument, it's still an ethics argument.

The proposition, within the scientific method, that we should value empirical data IS a utilitarian ethical guideline. Do you understand? Honestly I don't believe you understand what an ethic is... it just doesn't seem to register.

I don't think I ever said that everyone is interested in this. Or that even everyone would have to be interested in it. Also, I didn't say or imply that the intellect can only be used for science.

This was actually a direct response to this crappy "point" you claim to have. Basically, there are many ways to naturally use the intellect, and science does not happen without the set of parameters provided by the scientific method. It's just that simple.

If I did not make it clear before: I was not against your point that the importance and place of science as part of society can be viewed through ethical values, I was talking about your other point that the scientific way of thinking can only work by ethical guidelines, where I do disagree,

You don't even understand what an ethic is or understand this conversation.

because of how the thinking processes for scientific understanding in themselves don't need any of the ethical values. Actually, it's even more than just not needing them, introducing ethical values just constrains and hinders this process but of course I don't disagree that we have to do that sometimes, see ethical guidelines for experimentation.

To do science you must follow the scientific method. The method IS a set of ethical guidelines, like I have been telling you for 3 posts now. It's nonsense what you are arguing.
--------------------------------------
Let me try to put this in a way you might better understand, Myst.
Let's say you are walking through the woods... with another person. The person next to you stops, and says: "Look at that!" and points to something walking on a leaf. You say to them: "I don't have time to look at that, let's go". The person was pointing to a beetle walking on a leaf. Ok? Now...

So the beetle is walking on a leaf, that's true.. the person pointing to the leaf has an intellectual curiosity, that's true... but why should the other person look at the beetle on the leaf? They don't have time, they have a place they need to be going. Do you understand? The statement: "Look at that!" is an ethical statement. The tribal person I mentioned earlier - he sees no value in science, he has something else he is interested in. That doesn't mean he lacks an intellect, it simply means his intellect is channeled into his own pursuits. It's TRUE that there is a beetle walking on a leaf, but why should we look at it? Why should I have an intellectual curiosity to look at the beetle when I have somewhere else I need to be going? Maybe I'm interested in other things, or I don't have time... Do you understand?

[squark]

Anyway, there are many ways to use the intellect, as I just explained, and scientific thinking is not a natural use of the intellect. A tribal person would not even understand the concept of science if you tried to explain it to him.

A rudimentary form of the scientific method occurs in all cultures and is seen even in infants, as it's just observation - hypothesis - experimentation - conclusion and does happen naturally. However, I agree with the rest of your point that the formalization of it with specific rules and guidelines to follow is something else, and does depend on value judgements, as in "which method is better? why is it better?" with the values being the final objective of the method. Basically it's a matter of saying, "If you want to be objective and accurate follow these guidelines" but the question is "why do you want to be objective and accurate?" The want, or desire itself is the value. Like you said

The method IS a set of ethical guidelines

as the goal is to reach a specific ethic.

[Myst]

It is what I think everyone who reads your sentence will take away from it.

Nope.

I don't even see what your point is.

That's alright if you don't understand my point.

So. I've read your post, but clearly we are not on the same page. You did not follow my reasoning at all and you did strawmans (in your previous post too). All in all, if everything (including intellectual curiosity and even statements like "Look at that!") is ethical values/statements to you, which is a blatantly untrue idea, there is no point in discussing this.

Here's a summary of my point once more.

To you what doesn't seem to register that it is entirely possible to think about scientific matters without having to use ethical guidelines, even utilitarian ones. No, this is just a natural way of thinking like squark also mentioned. When you want to make this thinking interface with certain types of goals that's when you can add ethics for the purpose. But the thinking process itself does not require nor utilize ethical guidelines. It would actually go against its nature of objectivity. Not even actually always compatible with ethics in that way.

This is a point I already mentioned too, the conflict between objective thinking and ethical values, did you note it at all? Surely that should make you realize that something is off with your idea of how all science has to involve ethics.

Oh and I never even tried to imply that people who don't want to deal with science or with the refined way of objective thinking for its topics, lack all intellect. If that's what frustrated you.


EDIT: oh and check my next post too for that analogy of the computer executing methods without any ethical desires influencing the functioning of the methods.



PS: Are you a Te/Fi valuing type btw? Because I'm coming at this from a very Ti pov and I wonder if that is causing the lack of being on the same page. Not that science can't be done by Te/Fi types as much as by Ti/Fe types, just they'll have a different way to go about interpreting it, I suppose.