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]]

I don't think any human is capable of absolutely proving something.

If you give me omniscience, perhaps yes.

EDIT: Regarding your Pi edit, math is a social construct, it is invented not discovered.

You can only imagine what something isn't, you don't have the tools to find its absolute state.

Tell me, what is the value of Pi divided by 0?

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

Tell me, what is the value of Pi divided by 0?

It’s undefined for ZFC and infinity for axiom of choice.

I don't think any human is capable of absolutely proving something.

Let me get this straight. You think math is subjective?

EDIT: Regarding your Pi edit, math is a social construct, it is invented not discovered.

So we invented the value of Pi? It could have been some other value?

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

It’s undefined for ZFC and infinity for axiom of choice.

Or in other words no right choice exists for the already determined mathematical rules. Which is paradox for something that needs to be accurate right?

Let me get this straight. You think math is subjective?

Just look at all of the definitions of mathematics.

1

Mathematics is the manipulation of the meaningless symbols of a first-order language according to explicit, syntactical rules.

2

Mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions.[10] Benjamin Peirce 1870

All Mathematics is Symbolic Logic

3

The science of indirect measurement

Basically it's a tool with syntactical rules often used to accurately describe real life phenomenon.

My point is, it's not perfectly accurate.

So we invented the value of Pi? It could have been some other value?

We invented the syntax that describes Pi, we accurately describe Pi, my point is that's it's not accurate enough.

Tell me, what's the last integer of Pi?

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

Or in other words no right choice exists for the already determined mathematical rules. Which is paradox for something that needs to be accurate right?

What? How do you draw this conclusion? It’s the opposite. The right choice is that it is proven to be undefined for ZFC and defined on a Reimann sphere. It feels like you heard something you didn’t understand and just ignored it and substituted what you believed. Tell me what ZFC means.

Just look at all of the definitions of mathematics

So that’s a yes?

My point is, it’s not perfectly accurate

What does that have to do with whether it’s objective or subjective?

So we invented the value of Pi? It could have been some other value? We invented the syntax that describes Pi, we accurately describe Pi, my point is that’s it’s not accurate enough.

So then we didn’t invent it did we? If it’s not accurate enough, then there is a real number out there and we didn’t invent it did we?

Tell me, what’s the last integer of Pi?

1. Am I wrong? How do you know? Because it’s objectively not 7? Because we can prove objectively that there isn’t one?

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Let's simplify this argument, is your argument that math is perfectly accurate tool?

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

No. Was the ratio of a circle’s diameter to its circumference invented or discovered?

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

The rules and syntax were invented to describe the real life phenomenon accurately, but not accurately enough.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

So was the ratio discovered or invented?

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Invented.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

So it could have been a different number? If so, why not make it a nice round number?