Freedomain Radio

dash:

One can look at a river and state, "Water always flows downhill." He need not subject it to any test or verification.

That's not right.

First of all, empirical evidence is a "test or verification" - and second, one cannot validly extrapolate from a single example to every possible occurence without science or at least reason.

And finally, according to quantum physics, water can flow uphill.

Some comments on the book on UPB as I'm reading it.

Page 34 - "There is no way to achieve truth about the universe without science, but people are..." This is not a true statement, it is merely a conjecture. There may be ways to achieve truth about the universe that don't involve science. How can you be sure no such ways exist? We don't know everything, nor (perhaps) can we. Instead you could assert, "The most productive way to achieve truth about the universe is with science..."

Page 35 -- Premise 4: "Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal." I'd question this. Your example consists of the set of people that have found an error in your work and make the effort to correct you. What about the set of people who have found an error and choose _not_ to correct you? You don't hear from them. They don't get counted. But they certainly exist. So is it Universal? And if you say all people _should_ correct you, then it's a personal preference, I think. Perhaps some individuals consider it immoral to humiliate someone by correcting their errors. Indeed one could argue the vast majority of people _don't_ actually point out the flaws of other people. One  could argue that UPB must consist of avoiding correcting the errors of others...

Page 35 -- Premise 6: You claim "objective truth is universally preferable to subjective error." I'd argue this is one of the moral axioms that must be a given -- and depend on the acceptance of the majority.

OK, I've read all the Premises 1 through 8, and I can accept them all but I'd call them "Moral Axioms". I believe people exist that will take issue with one or more of them. I submit they are therefore not Universal, and instead their acceptance depends on the consensus of the majority.

Page 40 -- UPB: Five Proofs, proof #1. Your item #2 "Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable behaviour." This is incorrect. It demonstrates the evidence of behaviours that are required for rational argument (as setup with earlier Premises). I think the only thing you can prove is that, "Rational argument is possible. If you argue against rational argument, the act itself proves rational argument is possible. QED." But it's a stretch to use this as proof of UPB.

Page 66 -- "Clearly, if I proclaim that 'X' is 'the good,' then the opposite of 'X' must be evil.' This is not at all clear. If you state that for all X, if "X is good" then it must be true that "Opposite of X is evil" you're stating an opinion. Or this would have to be termed a "Premise" like the others (I like "Moral Axiom" better myself).  This rule cannot apply to all X. I claim that I want to be able to have rules like "X is good" and not be humstrung by requiring that such rules also imply the opposite of X is evil. Yet the bulk of your argument against "Rape is good" depends on this construct you sort of slip in under the radar. I don't accept the premise that "X is good" requires "Opposite of X is evil". Therefore any argument you make that depends on that premise is also unacceptable (to me).

Moreover IF you require that a law such as "X is good" creates a matching "Opposite of X is evil", and you demand that all such rules must be in force at the same time (as you use in the Rape example), then ALL such rules must fail if it is impossible for X to be performed all the time. And it further gets harder if you have multiple "Y is good" "Z is good" rules -- now one has to do X, Y and Z all at the same time! By the same argument you use to invalidate "Rape is good" you can also invalidate "Giving to charity is good". Maybe this is where you're going, that UPB cannot consist of rules of the form "X is good" unless X is of the form "Not doing ___". I don't know. This whole "proof" seems invalid, or at least significant portions of it.

I'm on page 70 and I'll probably quit reading for the night. Listen I'm rooting for you to succeed in this effort, but so far I'm not convinced your goal is achievable. To my thinking it's not a matter of making small corrections to the arguments + logic you use, the fundamental approach is flawed, I think.

As I understand it you wish to present a self-evident set of UPB's that is logically undeniable. And then extend that set, logically and rationally, to define a complete system of ethics that will serve to reduce evil in the universe. I'm starting to object to the self-evidence of your chosen initial set of UPB's.

I believe if your approach were to present a set of initial Moral Axioms that an overwhelming majority of people would accept as self-evident and acceptable, then you can certainly construct on top of them the system of ethics you wish to introduce. I have no problem with Where You're Going with all this. I am merely forming the inescapable conclusion that how you're getting there is on shaky ground. I applaud your effort, but I cannot blindly accept it without question. I don't think I'd be acting morally if I didn't act as a critic in this situation.

Note -- Stefan. I'm your elder by a little over 1 month. Knowing that might help you convince yourself to devote thought to the validity of my feedback. Also I intend to contribute a bit of hard $ to you to aid in your effort.

-Dave

For Science, the premise is: if you want to determine a valid truth about the behaviour of matter and energy, it is preferable to use the scientific method.

In this sense, "preferable" does not mean "sort of better," but rather "required."

Steph, Can I ask what you mean by "a valid truth"? It seems to me that if you simply mean "something that is true", then you could determine such a thing by randomly guessing, it would be unlikely, but possible. If this is what you mean then the scientific method is a vastly better way to get such things, but not the only way, and thus not required.

I'm guessing that you meant something more along the lines of, "something you can be reasoably certain is true." But on my first reading of it that's not what it sounded like to me, so I was just wondering if you could clarify. Thanks!

Stefan Molyneux:

dash:

One can look at a river and state, "Water always flows downhill." He need not subject it to any test or verification.

That's not right.

First of all, empirical evidence is a "test or verification" - and second, one cannot validly extrapolate from a single example to every possible occurence without science or at least reason.

And finally, according to quantum physics, water can flow uphill.

Stefan,

If I must grant you some leeway in your assertions where they state something but yet exceptions will certainly exist, you must grant me some similiar latitude.

The essence of my point is someone can divine a valid scientific truth with a minimum of examples, and the fact that he/she hasn't subjected it to experimental verification does not imply it's not truth. You can question the validity of the example I chose, but I'd rather you attacked the underlying argument.

Another example I had considered was, "Darkness isn't a thing that exists on its own, it is merely the absence of light".

There is another point I want to make sure we agree on. Scientific "truths" can never be proven to be true. Truths, theories, "laws" can only be disproven, usually by appropriate experiment or through evidence of counterexamples. Scientific "truths" are just ones that have withstood the test of time. But tomorrow could bring evidence that accepted truths are in fact wrong or incomplete. You yourself cite Newton's law of gravity being updated when Einstein came on the scene.

Just to be pedantic, I assert it is possible for someone to devise a valid scientific truth without ever bothering to test its validity. Early farmers at some point started watering their crops. They might have arrived at the concept, "Watering the crops keeps them alive and yields more food". This is a true concept. If they never bothered to conduct an experiment where they _don't_ water the crops to see if yields are reduced or the crops die, the concept is not any less true. Any statement is inherently either true or false (or indeterminate due to self reference I suppose) independent of whether humans have made any effort to settle the matter. The humans don't know the truth or falsehood of a statement unless they do the work, however.

-Dave