RE: Evolution of morality
March 11, 2011 at 5:50 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2011 at 7:01 am by lilphil1989.)
(March 10, 2011 at 8:38 pm)corndog36 Wrote: My background is science is not extensive, but as I understand it the Newtonian model of physics worked fine until Michelson was able to test it, as it applied to the relativity of the speed of light. The model didn't work in that case, and we had to start over. I'm attempting to use those terms in the same way.
Yes (although SR is just a modification of newtonian mechanics, not a whole new framework. This is periphery though, and we seem to be on the same semantic terms
).(Incidentally, since you brought this example up, Lorentz, when deriving the Lorentz transforms which form the basis of special relativity, did it as a joke.
He essentially said "Well, if intervals of space and time can change size like this, we can explain the Michelson-Morley experiment LOLOLOLOL"
Then along came Einstein who showed that yes, that really is what happens.)
The problem with this analogy is that there was a model (Newtonian physics) and an independent reality against which to test it (How do objects in motion really behave? How does light really behave?).
With morality, there is NO independent reality against which to test, as you yourself agree in the below quote. Therefore the "moral model" which you are talking about and "real" morality are one and the same thing.
(March 10, 2011 at 8:38 pm)corndog36 Wrote: No. Morality is a product of the human mind. (unless we start talking about hypothetical aliens again.)
Ok, a few things you said earlier seemed to impy that; I just wanted to make sure I wasn't arguing against a strawman (which I would have been!). Thanks for clearing that up.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
