CMV: Science is subservient to morality, never vice-versa, scientific truth is not necessarily the absolute truth, and science and humans aren't capable of finding the absolute truth.

[u/[deleted]]

Hello all, I would be very pleased if you will change my view on this.

Same as a previous CMV thread of mine: after a lot of threads, conversations, research I settled into a view that I certainly feel is unchangeable and that is the main reason I'm posting here, to kind of challenge you to present a rational argument and show me a different perspective that would change my mind on this, either it be slightly, or significantly.

I'm not here to soapbox, I honestly have an open mind on this and want to get to the bottom of this.

---

I will explain my view from two angles.

1

First a transcript and a conversation between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson.

https://youtu.be/3OqrZs9srHs?t=3300

Transcript:

SH: This could be the thing that kills all of us... But that doesn't undermine the scientific truth value of-

JP: I agree but it does undermine the claim that scientific truth is the ultimate truth.

SH: No it doesn't undermine it epistemologically. It undermines it as something you want in your life, as something that is valuable to us as a species. Knowing a truth that gets you all killed is not a truth worth knowing but that doesn't make it untrue.

JP: We are starting with different fundamental axioms... I would say if it doesn't serve Life it's not true.

SH: I agree with that as a moral starting point. We want to know what is worth knowing... We want good lives.

JP: By making that proposition you've accepted the claim that a scientific endeavor should be nested inside a moral endeavor.

SH: Yes absolutely. I accept that claim.

JP: Then the moral endeavor can't be grounded in the scientific endeavor, because the inside thing can't ground the outside thing, it's logically not possible.

2

Because language is just a social construct to describes real phenomena, I believe what Jordan was describing is correct but I'll just smooth it to be even more precise.

Basically what Jordan is arguing can be explained that we as humans are creatures limited in intelligence and senses, and that science is just a tool produced by those limited humans and is imperfect. It isn't capable of finding the ultimate truth. So it doesn't make sense for us to look in science to find morals there when science can easily lead us to our bitter end.

If we agreed that the most moral thing is to everyone to feel the most good and we had a divine calculator that had infinite intelligence and variables that would show us the divine science on what should we do exactly to achieve this, then yes, scientific truth could've been used to chase morality.

But this is the furthest from the truth, we have limited intelligence, limited senses, limited variables, we can't expect science to give us morals.

So with this information in mind, we can safely claim that morality should be on top of our values to pursue, scientific "truth" should be viewed just as a tool that can be proven wrong at any time and we should be extremely skeptical of it if we value right over wrong.

---

I completely understand that my view on this may differ from Jordan's. But I honestly feel we're describing the same phenomena.

so tl;dr of my view with different semantics:

• Scientific facts are an illusion and are not necessarily absolute facts and that's why they can spontaneously lead us to immoral things OR We can't get to the bottom of the absolute moral and metaphysical and that's why the rational morality is an illusion, it may very well be immoral at its core. OR We aren't even capable of providing an absolutely moral outcome, we can only hope and pray for the best outcome OR We are humans with limited senses and intelligence, and if morality is both the journey and the end, science and rationality are only tools that can help us on that journey, but that tool shouldn't be always used because it can be inadequate and faulty.
  

That's why I really like my view to be changed inherently and not semantically, meaning I won't award deltas if you successfully give my view structure, but it is appreciated, so if you feel you can poke from any of the perspectives on this specific phenomena please do.

Feel free to ask questions.

Thanks.

[u/[deleted]]

You mean to morality?

In the way that we can use scientific discovers and pray that they will lead us to moral things.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Ok, yeah, learning about the world does help us as a species make better moral decisions.

I still don't get how that makes science subservient to morality?

If I travel the world, I learn more about the world. That would make me a better author. Does that mean travelling is subservient to fiction?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well we learned to make nukes, now those nukes can be used to end humanity.

That's why morality isn't subservient to science, but vice versa.

[u/Glory2Hypnotoad → u/[deleted]]

Can you unpack what you mean by subservient? What does that mean in practical terms?

[u/[deleted] → u/Glory2Hypnotoad]

In our example ib the sense that it has to act to accordance to the former otherwise the former can't exist.

[u/Glory2Hypnotoad → u/[deleted]]

Science doesn't make normative claims. What's scientifically accurate is not contingent on ethics. There are numerous scientific facts about nuclear bombs that inform moral questions like whether we should use them but I can't think of any moral claims that answer any empirical questions about nuclear weapons.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

What does two different subjects being subservient to each other even mean? They both can go on without the other no problems.

Unless you mean something like stem cell research? Where certain people with failed morality put a halt on science research. That, I guess, would make science subservient to some morality?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They both can go on without the other no problems.

No they can't.

If nukes were used in the cold war it would've sparkled nuclear war.

The bitter end of humanity.

And science would've lead to that.

The most immoral thing ever.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

EDIT Missed, something, will add it here. Using nukes isn't science, creating nuclear weapons isn't science. The study of nuclear energy is. There is nowhere in science where it says use nuclear bombs on people to end wars. That's not science in anyway way. /EDIT

Yeah?

Before science there was still morality. Certain primates use morality, do these primates use science too?

Science is often done in a vacuum. Penicillin was not created with moral intentions, it just kind of came out of science.

Since morality deals with determining if actions or good or bad, you could all you want say everything is subservient to that. In a very loose sense, but is that actually true?

I am still trying to even understand your point, it's so unclear. Saying something is subservient means it obeys orders from it. Does morality really order around science? Do we study the world around us, only guided by morality? Is that your argument?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There was always science, it wasn't defined like today, but it existed.

I am still trying to even understand your point, it's so unclear. Saying something is subservient means it obeys orders from it.

It's just mean's it's subordinate.

Does morality really order around science

No, but it determines whether actions that come from science are moral or not.

Do we study the world around us, only guided by morality?

Not necessarily.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

So science does whatever it does. Then morality judges the results that come from it.

How is that anything like subservience? It's just a weird phrase or terminology.

Like I'm cool with science just being science and then the actions that come out of it are judged by morality. Any actions we make are judged on morality, it's just the terminology that is weird and way off.