In article <1qkj31$4c6@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <lsr6ihINNsa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes: >#In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >#>Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,  >#>as you would wish it.  If there is no such thing as objective value, then  >#>science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head. >#>Simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said >#>to be more useful than a set of tarot cards.  You like those conclusions? >#>I don't.  >#I think that you are changing the meaning of "values" here. Perhaps >#it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word.  >#value n. 1. A fair equivalent or return for something, such as goods >#or service. 2. Monetary or material worth. 3. Worth as measured in  >#usefulness or importance; merit. 4. A principle, standard, or quality >#considered inherently worthwhile or desirable. 5. Precise meaning, as >#of a word. 6. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity. 7. Mus.  >#The relative duratation of a tone or rest. 8. The relative darkness or >#lightness of a color. 9. The distinctive quality of a speech or speech >#sound.   >#In context of a moral system, definition four seems to fit best. In terms >#of scientific usage, definitions six or eight might apply. Note that >#these definitions do not mean the same thing.  >No, I'm using definition (3), or perhaps (4) in both cases.  If there >is no objective worth, usefulness, or importance then science has no  >objective worth, usefulness, or importance.  If nothing is inherently >worthwhile or desirable, then simple theories with accurate predictions >are not inherently worthwhile or desirable. Do you see any flaws in this?  The problem is, your use of the word "objective" along with "values." Both definitions three and four are inherently subjective, that is they are particular to a given individual, or personal. You see, what one person may see as worthwhile, another may see as worthless.  >If on the other hand, some things *have* objective worth, usefulness, >or importance, it would be interesting to know what they are.  Again, your form of measurement in this sentence, that being of "worth" is subjective.   >#If you can provide an objective foundation for "morality" then that will >#be a good beginning.  >I'm not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective >basis for the notion that science is useful, worthy, or important in >dealing with observed facts.  Alternatively, you could try to >demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful, worthy >or important in any situation.   In other words, I need to know >how you use the term "objective".  When I find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of that word given by another person, I try to find a standard against which to judge that usage. In most cases, the dictionary is the standard I use. Here is a definiton of objective:  objective ADJ. 1. Of or having to do with a material object as  distinguished from a mental concept. 2. Having actual existance. 3.a. Unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice. b. Based on observable phenomenon.  By this definition, science does not have an objective worth, since the phrase "objective worth" is an oxymoron. However you asked something a  little differently this time, you asked for an objective basis for a notion. The fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is responsible for changes in our world (the changes are material, and thus "objective") would provide an objective _basis_ for an argument. However, the conclusion arrived at from that argument (that science is  "good") is subjective.  I think that the problem here is one of word usage. Take a little time and read the definitions of these words: objective, subjective, worth, value, morality, good, evil. I believe that if you think about the  meaning of them for a while, you will have to conclude that there is no such thing as an objective morality.  >Frank O'Dwyer                                  'I'm not hatching That' >odwyer@sse.ie                                  from "Hens",  by Evelyn Conlon