RE: Ethics
March 2, 2022 at 4:51 pm
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2022 at 4:53 pm by GrandizerII.)
(March 2, 2022 at 12:12 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(March 2, 2022 at 10:34 am)polymath257 Wrote: But I don't think that only science can give knowledge.
Mathematics also gives knowledge. but math does not give knowledge *about the real world*. it gives knowledge about certain formal systems.
The reason science can give knowledge is that there is a definite challenge procedure: if two people disagree, they try to find an observation that can be made to determine who is wrong. If no such observation is possible (even in theory), the two viewpoints are considered to be equivalent. otherwise, the observation is made and one of the views is excluded.
In math, if two people disagree, they try to find a proof one way or the other. There are established axioms and rules of deduction and those determine the correctness of any proposed proof. if the two people do not share an axiom system, the question is considered to be meaningless. if there is a proof of two contradictory statements, then the axiom system is declared to be deficient.
Now, what is the challenge procedure for an ethical question? Suppose that two people disagree about a trolley problem. How is the matter resolved? How is it determined who is wrong?
If no such procedure is to be found, it isn't a subject that leads to knowledge.
Now, I would be very interested in such a procedure for ethics. it would be a tremendous breakthrough, allowing ethics to, finally, be a subject of knowledge, rather than opinion. But none is evident and I don't know of anyone who thinks there is such. Kant proposed one, but it is self-defeating.
I'm not sure I can agree with you on these points.
In math, there are fundamental assumptions which lead to different mathematical systems. We don't conclude that all math is meaningless as a result.
The point is that there is a massive collection of types of math problems that have solutions which most, if not all, mathematicians can agree on because there are axioms that they all agree on. We don't have something comparable to that in ethics. While ethicists may agree on some basic starting point such as "do no harm", anything beyond that is pretty much in dispute among ethicists.
So I can see why someone like polymath would then conclude that ethics does not lead to knowledge while mathematics does, even though I don't fully agree with him on that.