Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: the ethics of empiricism

Expand Messages
  • Ken Batts
    Very plausible. My ideal is to seek and express the truth as I see it, even when it s difficult. We are like the child in the story of the emperor s new
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Very plausible. My ideal is to seek and express the truth as I see it, even when it's difficult.
      We are like the child in the story of the emperor's new clothes; we can't see the cloth (the
      supernatural) and don't believe it's there, and won't agree to say it's there just because
      some think we should. Actually, we're adults who, unlike the child, understand some of
      why others pretend to see the non-existent clothes, but we speak up anyway, hoping to be
      heard, in order to approach our ideal self.

      This might not be exactly the same thing, but in my attempt to simplify:

      "The best way we can treat each other is to base our beliefs solely on evidence."


      Ken





      --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <twc@n...> wrote:
      > We all have an ethical obligation, I would argue, to be empiricists
      > when our beliefs have implications and consequences for this world,
      > which of course is most of the time, about which see
      > http://www.naturalism.org/activism.htm#ethics . So it turns out that
      > naturalism, which more or less follows from a consistent rational
      > empiricism (in the sense of our beliefs being responsive to evidence,
      > observation, etc), is driven by a kind of cognitive responsibility we
      > owe to each other. Plausible?
      >
      > Tom
    • twclark2002
      ... solely on evidence. Yes, this sums it up, and the reason it s the best way is that evidence-based beliefs are the most reliable in tracking the world, and
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts"
        <ken@k...> wrote:

        > "The best way we can treat each other is to base our beliefs
        solely on evidence."

        Yes, this sums it up, and the reason it's the best way is that
        evidence-based beliefs are the most reliable in tracking the world,
        and so give us the best information on which to base behavior.
        Empirical truth is a supremely valuable gift to ourselves and
        others. So for both for selfish and altruistic reasons we want this
        truth, and it turns out that in getting it we are led to see that
        the world is of a piece, not divided up into the natural vs.
        supernatural.


        > Very plausible. My ideal is to seek and express the truth as I see
        it, even when it's difficult.
        > We are like the child in the story of the emperor's new clothes;
        we can't see the cloth (the
        > supernatural) and don't believe it's there, and won't agree to say
        it's there just because
        > some think we should. Actually, we're adults who, unlike the
        child, understand some of
        > why others pretend to see the non-existent clothes, but we speak
        up anyway, hoping to be
        > heard, in order to approach our ideal self.
        >
        > This might not be exactly the same thing, but in my attempt to
        simplify:
        >
        > "The best way we can treat each other is to base our beliefs
        solely on evidence."
        >
        >
        > Ken
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002"
        <twc@n...> wrote:
        > > We all have an ethical obligation, I would argue, to be
        empiricists
        > > when our beliefs have implications and consequences for this
        world,
        > > which of course is most of the time, about which see
        > > http://www.naturalism.org/activism.htm#ethics . So it turns out
        that
        > > naturalism, which more or less follows from a consistent
        rational
        > > empiricism (in the sense of our beliefs being responsive to
        evidence,
        > > observation, etc), is driven by a kind of cognitive
        responsibility we
        > > owe to each other. Plausible?
        > >
        > > Tom
      • Ken Batts
        ... Trying to be as reliable as we can seems to me ethical behavior, even by traditional standards. Let s see, reliability, causality, compassion, control.
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "twclark2002" <
          twc@n...> wrote:
          > --- In naturalismphilosophyforum@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Batts"
          > <ken@k...> wrote:
          >
          > > "The best way we can treat each other is to base our beliefs
          > solely on evidence."
          >
          > Yes, this sums it up, and the reason it's the best way is that
          > evidence-based beliefs are the most reliable in tracking the world

          Trying to be as reliable as we can seems to me ethical behavior, even
          by traditional standards. Let's see, reliability, causality, compassion,
          control. What a bunch of zany radicals we are.....!

          Ken
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.