From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The Enduring Rand (was: Re: Theory?)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:03:28 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov18.172026.8001@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> If you're looking for some grand formula that you can use to predict the
>    behavior of whole societies, you won't ever find it. Similarly, if you're
>    looking for some grand formula to predict the weather at any given place
>    at any given time, you won't ever find it. 
>
>pn> Except that in the case of weather I presume that the precision with which
>    our models match reality continues to improve, i.e., our ability to predict
>    the weather 24 hours from now is probably better now than it was in 1967, 
>    and that was probably better than in 1942.   
>
>  True. However, predicting what the weather will be two weeks from now has
>  as poor record in 1992 as it did 25 or 50 years ago.

  So?  All that shows is that we don't have a good enough theoretical
  model to attempt such things.   My point though is that there are 
  plenty of areas where scientific models *do* continue to show im-
  proving matches with reality.   There is no equivalent of this in
  ethics.


  
>pn> I don't see any evidence of this in ethical philosophy  -- i.e., people
>    seem to be debating the same issues they were 2500 years ago.
>
>  As if cosmologists aren't debating the same issues that they were 2500 years
>  ago.

  But even cosmology, speculative as it is, continues to offer avenues
  for refinement and closure: some cosmological models predict a 
  certain background flux of radiation in certain parts of the electro-
  manetic spectrum and this can be (has been, is being) tested for.
  Certain models made predictions long ago about the total mass of
  the universe which was far greater than what had been observed.  But
  lately, discoveries of "dark matter" are beginning to support those
  models.  "Gravity lenses" also are confirming earlier concepts
  of distances and masses of certain objects.   So even in cosmology
  which is arguably the most *speculative* of all sciences and the 
  one hardest to do experiments in there are avenues of closure and
  refinement that ethics denies itself by its very vagueness.

  Also 2500 years ago there was no general agreement that the earth
  wasn't at the center of the universe!  



>  My main point is that perhaps we're approaching this from the wrong angle.
>  The rules for determining whether or not a scientific theory is correct
>  are applicable only to science, and we need some other metrics for judging
>  ethical theories.

  What you are asking for is some alternative epistemology, which is 
  what we've been debating!    The scientific one has the ability 
  to continuously refine its models to achieve a closer and closer 
  match to reality, and it provides a means of reaching closure,
  that is, when there is a dispute between competing models it
  is possible to devise a test that can resolve the dispute.  

  Choosing some alternative epistemology merely because it's too
  hard to apply science to problems like these makes about as 
  much sense as doing animal sacrifices to cure AIDS because
  science hasn't succeeded at it.  
  
  

>  I certainly wouldn't use the scientific method to judge
>  whether or not the "Mona Lisa" was a good painting,

  Me neither, but I don't claim that whether the Mona Lisa is 
  a "good" painting is an objective truth.   The Randians on
  the other hand *DO* claim that there is an objective ethics
  so your beef is with them, not me.


---peter