(July 2, 2015 at 8:49 am)pocaracas Wrote: 1. Science is immoral - actually, science is amoral. It just doesn't care about morality.
I don't see how anyone can say that "science informs morality"... but one can think of archeology and sociology and psychology as informing our current picture of how morality can have come about in human populations.
2. Science does not lead to all truths - loaded, what does that mean "all truths"? Oh, you need math, reason and logic before you have science, huh?... duh.
Also, the "say so of others"... "no one person does all the research to arrive at all the scientific conclusions - you must believe in what others tell you"... It's like these guys' sole purpose is to lend credence to their own way of getting conclusions: the say so of a particular other.... but wait, peer review - still the say so of others attesting the say so of some guy... They skim the part where we can repeat the experiments of others... unlike what happens with their favorite prophet's experiences...
3. Science is limited to what is observable - What else is there but the observable? Oh, you want to put a god in the mix.... a god that is unobservable by any scientific means... This is a way of saying that this god has no real properties...
OH, but they go on with the fact that science is always advancing, sometimes changing previously held conclusions. Which is the intellectually honest position... should we pick an answer to something and write it in stone, like religions do?
All morality appeals to consequence, whether they admit to it or not. Science informs whether the specific allegation of the consequence is bullshit or not.
