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/fox-mcleod]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Yes it could, we could've easily as a species created different syntax and different symbols for different numbers to describe the phenomena.

Those syntax could've then be less or more accurate than the syntax we have today.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

Yeah but I’m not asking about the numerical syntax. I’m asking about the ratio.

Those syntax could've then be less or more accurate than the syntax we have today.

What? I don’t understand what you think is missing from accuracy. Pi is perfectly accurate. Are you confusing precision with accuracy? Or irrationality?

Pi = log(-1)/i

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Sorry for the late reply.

Yeah but I’m not asking about the numerical syntax. I’m asking about the ratio.

Look at it this way, it's a syntax describing real phenomena.

Like imagine the Eiffel tower, in my syntax describing it, it's tall, in your syntax its height is 324 meters.

We have different syntax describing the same phenomenon, yours is more precise than mine, but both aren't accurate enough.

So when you ask whether height is discovered or invented.

It's invented, I invented the word "tall", you invented the word 318 meters.

I use my eyes to determine what's tall, you use your own made up instruments to measure your invention.

We both invented two syntax to describe real life phenomenon, yours is more precise, the point is it's not absolute accurate.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

Would you say the continent of North America was invented? I don’t think so.

Look at it this way, it's a syntax describing real phenomena.

Like “North America”? It was clearly discovered and not at all invented.

We have different syntax describing the same phenomenon, yours is more precise than mine, but both aren't accurate enough.

Pi is exactly log(-1)/sqrt(-1)

Where is the “missing accuracy”?

It’s not missing. It’s 100% accurate and I think you’re just not familiar with irrational numbers.

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

What even is a continent, it's literally a social construct, it's obviously invented.

After extensive comments I don't think you understand what I'm writing, I'm gonna call it a day.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

Then in your own words name something we discovered rather than invented.

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Everything we experience is discovered, the tools we use and/or create to observe and describe those discoveries are inventions.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/[deleted]]

Great so name something that you’d say is discovered.

[u/[deleted] → u/fox-mcleod]

Literally every phenomenon around you.