Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA08644 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 27 Mar 2001 21:48:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 20:54:21 +0100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: The Demise of a Meme Message-ID: <20010327205421.A1210@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D23@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745D23@inchna.stir.ac.uk>; from v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:51:39PM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:51:39PM +0100, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> <Science is, indeed, value free. That's why we need something other
> than
> > science to help us handle values.>
> >
> But isn't that the point? You can't test the validity of values
> with a value-laden methdology, that's why you need science.
No, you need science to discover facts.
> <This is about "could", not "should". I claim you can't derive
> values
> > from science. Regardless of the desireability of deriving them from
> > anything else. Now show me how you can.>
> >
> Well, I'm not sure that one necessarily derives values from science,
> but you can test the validity of values using it, e.g. the validity of
> racism.
In terms of sheer numbers of racists, what proportion do you think would
be swayed either way by genetic arguments? Don't make the mistake of
thinking everyone is like you, a thorough-going rationalist. I'd bet the
vast majority of racists are happy to assume the "others" to be inferior,
without caring much about any fact or pseudo-fact. These people have
psychological problems that no amount of rationalisation will affect.
It's just like any other ingrained prejudice.
> That's not to say that racists will accept scientific explanations
> that undermine their views, but surely their views have less credibility as
> a result.
Excuse me, I wrote the foregoing before reading this sentence. But it
supports my point. Less credibility among whom? If they're racists,
they're unlikely to care. If they're not racists, such views wouldn't
have much credibility for them anyway.
> Hence whatever's left in terms of our values towards issues of
> race should become dominant.
Wouldn't it be nice...!
> At one level this is idealism, at another its
> the political reality where several countries have racial abuse as civil
> rights abuses and thus crimes. People are still racist, but as a society we
> collectively acknowledge such views as illegitimate.
Umm, can you tell me, how exactly science helped in achieving this?
> <It can resolve disputes about facts, not those about values.>
>
> Which values are not based on facts people (think they) know?
I don't know where to start. Equality, fraternity, liberty, justice...
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 27 2001 - 21:51:36 BST