Science and Ethics
Oct. 28th, 2019 05:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unspeakablehorrorThere's nothing quite like seeing two contradictory posts in close succession link to scientific studies backing up their position. Which one is right? Maybe one of them is misinterpreting the results of the linked studies. Maybe they both are. Maybe both of them understand the results, but one of the studies is flawed. Maybe both of the studies were too flawed to base any useful conclusions on.
What is even more tenuous is when I see the above but the positions supposedly being backed up by the results are primarily ethical positions and not factual ones. I very much think scientific evidence is important, because I think otherwise it's too easy for people to just believe whatever they want about the world, but I think attempting to use science to back up one's preconcieved ideas is a common issue. I also think that trying to use science to validate a moral position is subject to a very major issue. Science can tell us something about what the world is like. But morality isn't about what the world is like. Morality is about what the world *should* be like. What is and what should be are of course linked. We need to know what is before we can chart a course to what should be, and this is a valid reason to reference science regarding a moral position. But I don't see any means by which even a definitive understanding of what is can tell us what should be.
What is even more tenuous is when I see the above but the positions supposedly being backed up by the results are primarily ethical positions and not factual ones. I very much think scientific evidence is important, because I think otherwise it's too easy for people to just believe whatever they want about the world, but I think attempting to use science to back up one's preconcieved ideas is a common issue. I also think that trying to use science to validate a moral position is subject to a very major issue. Science can tell us something about what the world is like. But morality isn't about what the world is like. Morality is about what the world *should* be like. What is and what should be are of course linked. We need to know what is before we can chart a course to what should be, and this is a valid reason to reference science regarding a moral position. But I don't see any means by which even a definitive understanding of what is can tell us what should be.