Is there any difference between "objectively true scientific theory", "accepted moral value" and "beauty standards""

[MxM111]

From epistemological point of view I see nearly no difference about those three. We run models in our head (and sometimes with the use of pen and paper or computer) about the properties of the surround world. The models in our heads compete with each other for being accepted on top level as operational. Usually we assume that they describe the world the best way possible. Arguably none of those are precise. Newton physics is not precise, for example, nor our current moral value set.

Those models, those memes, are evolving in time with their own mutations and selection criteria in our brains. We as society, and as individual always modify them, select the best one, and they are in sort of competition. So, what's the difference? Theories change in time, beauty standards change in time, moral values change in time. Knowledge is generated in all three areas. Experimental tests are done as part of the selection criteria in all three arias, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. By this standard if we accept that there are objectively true scientific theories, then there should be objectively true moral values and beauty standards. Why not? I have problem to point on the difference.

 

[rousseau]

From the perspective of 'we're just trying to figure out what works' there are definitely parallels between the three domains, although the processes used to achieve each outcome are different. It sounds like you're being a bit loose with the word 'objective' as well.

 

[rousseau]

I'd also add that 'beauty standards' are genetic to a very large degree, not really something we 'agree on', but rather something that is embedded into our psyche given a long history of evolution. There are cultural differences, but I think the core preferences are basically embedded.

 

[MxM111]

From the perspective of 'we're just trying to figure out what works' there are definitely parallels between the three domains, although the processes used to achieve each outcome are different. It sounds like you're being a bit loose with the word 'objective' as well.

Would you like to explain the trouble I have with the word "objective". I might.
Also, if you will, can you describe differences in the process of scientific knowledge versus moral value knowledge. Both has observation, argumentation, and experiment/implementation parts, may be on different time scale, but still...

I'd also add that 'beauty standards' are genetic to a very large degree, not really something we 'agree on', but rather something that is embedded into our psyche given a long history of evolution. There are cultural differences, but I think the core preferences are basically embedded.

There is definitely genetic component in the standard of beauty, as we understand it now. But
1) consider us fast forward some time in future where we will be either in complete control of our own genome, or will not even use genome for reproduction. Do you think the standards of beauty disappear?
2) I can give you numerous example of things that we find beautiful, like flower or night sky or even some versus with little or no informational content and that will have no connection with our standards governed by the need of survival and reproduction.
3) Science is impacted by our genetic as well. The types of model and explanations we think of clearly depends on it. We are not doing well in thinking five-dimensional images, but excel in 3D and less. I am sure there are other similar capabilities and preferences of our brains, so we solve tasks (create models) in a very particular way. For example, there is huge resistance to many world interpretation of quantum mechanics, despite of the fact that it is the simplest one - we just refuse to think that something appears from nothing (despite of the fact that it is not, it just looks this way) - it just not what our intuition says.

 

[rousseau]

From the perspective of 'we're just trying to figure out what works' there are definitely parallels between the three domains, although the processes used to achieve each outcome are different. It sounds like you're being a bit loose with the word 'objective' as well.

Would you like to explain the trouble I have with the word "objective". I might.

Objectively true moral values I'm not too sure about. Do you have an example of something you'd consider an objectively true moral value, that can never be falsified?

Objectively true scientific theories I'm closer to on board with. Something like the theory of evolution, broadly speaking, is an unbreakable description of living things.

 

[ronburgundy]

From epistemological point of view I see nearly no difference about those three. We run models in our head (and sometimes with the use of pen and paper or computer) about the properties of the surround world. The models in our heads compete with each other for being accepted on top level as operational. Usually we assume that they describe the world the best way possible. Arguably none of those are precise. Newton physics is not precise, for example, nor our current moral value set.

Those models, those memes, are evolving in time with their own mutations and selection criteria in our brains. We as society, and as individual always modify them, select the best one, and they are in sort of competition. So, what's the difference? Theories change in time, beauty standards change in time, moral values change in time. Knowledge is generated in all three areas. Experimental tests are done as part of the selection criteria in all three arias, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. By this standard if we accept that there are objectively true scientific theories, then there should be objectively true moral values and beauty standards. Why not? I have problem to point on the difference.

Only the first one is making a claim about something that isn't inherently a subjective emotional state. A theory about the earth revolving around the sun refers two objects and their relation that either exist or not regardless of what anyone feels about it, and in fact existed long before there were any minds to feel anything. The latter two only have meaning in reference to how some subjective mind feels about some state of affairs outside that mind. IOW, their entire meaning exists only in reference to how someone feels about it. Beauty and moral refer to how someone feels about a thing, not to the a property of the think itself. In fact, we can use the same act to highlight the difference, let's use two people having sex. There are scientific theories about the physics and biology involved. Those theories refer to how physical objects interact with other physical objects, even if there is no one observing the act. In contrast, the same act being beautiful or moral doesn't refer to the act itself but an emotional state of pleasure/preference of some mind that is observing or thinking about the act. OF course, a scientific theory is in a person's mind, but the theory is a representation of a thing outside that mind. Whereas a moral or beauty claim is a claim about the mind.

Imagine an emotionless and goal-free AI system that had no capacity to hold a preference and could only judge whether the the logical relations among the semantic tokens in an utterance matched the referent objects it observed with it's senses. It could reach conclusions about scientific accuracy of claims, but the whole concept of beauty and morality would be nonsensical.

If there was nobody in the world that could experience some things as more beautiful than others, then nothing would be beautiful and nothing ugly. But if there were nobody in the world that could experience the Earth going around the Sun, there would still be the Earth going around the Sun.

 

[Valjean]

I don't see it.
Science is an investigational modality. It explores mechanisms and the laws and constants underlying them. It forms and tests hypotheses and , far from absolute, objective truth, all scientific theories are provisional.

How does this relate to moral values or aesthetics? Can these things be investigated? How would you test or falsify them?

 

[MxM111]

From the perspective of 'we're just trying to figure out what works' there are definitely parallels between the three domains, although the processes used to achieve each outcome are different. It sounds like you're being a bit loose with the word 'objective' as well.

Would you like to explain the trouble I have with the word "objective". I might.

Objectively true moral values I'm not too sure about. Do you have an example of something you'd consider an objectively true moral value, that can never be falsified?

Objectively true scientific theories I'm closer to on board with. Something like the theory of evolution, broadly speaking, is an unbreakable description of living things.

If you have a power of god and make all intelligent creatures in universe suffer at nearly maximum suffering capability as they themselves define it, then arguably making so is morally bad, objectively so.

 

[MxM111]

I don't see it.
Science is an investigational modality. It explores mechanisms and the laws and constants underlying them. It forms and tests hypotheses and , far from absolute, objective truth, all scientific theories are provisional.

How does this relate to moral values or aesthetics? Can these things be investigated? How would you test or falsify them?

Why do you think the moral values are not provisional? As for how to test the moral value - look at our history, it is a test case of moral values implemented as, well, values in different societies. The societies themselves reject or accept the values, as it has been done, for example, with slavery in US, through discussion and analysis and political changes (and wars) done by many people collectively. Not that much dissimilar how it is done with scientific theories (well, may be physical war is not the usual part of scientific progress).

 

[MxM111]

From epistemological point of view I see nearly no difference about those three. We run models in our head (and sometimes with the use of pen and paper or computer) about the properties of the surround world. The models in our heads compete with each other for being accepted on top level as operational. Usually we assume that they describe the world the best way possible. Arguably none of those are precise. Newton physics is not precise, for example, nor our current moral value set.

Those models, those memes, are evolving in time with their own mutations and selection criteria in our brains. We as society, and as individual always modify them, select the best one, and they are in sort of competition. So, what's the difference? Theories change in time, beauty standards change in time, moral values change in time. Knowledge is generated in all three areas. Experimental tests are done as part of the selection criteria in all three arias, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. By this standard if we accept that there are objectively true scientific theories, then there should be objectively true moral values and beauty standards. Why not? I have problem to point on the difference.

Only the first one is making a claim about something that isn't inherently a subjective emotional state. A theory about the earth revolving around the sun refers two objects and their relation that either exist or not regardless of what anyone feels about it, and in fact existed long before there were any minds to feel anything. The latter two only have meaning in reference to how some subjective mind feels about some state of affairs outside that mind. IOW, their entire meaning exists only in reference to how someone feels about it. Beauty and moral refer to how someone feels about a thing, not to the a property of the think itself. In fact, we can use the same act to highlight the difference, let's use two people having sex. There are scientific theories about the physics and biology involved. Those theories refer to how physical objects interact with other physical objects, even if there is no one observing the act. In contrast, the same act being beautiful or moral doesn't refer to the act itself but an emotional state of pleasure/preference of some mind that is observing or thinking about the act. OF course, a scientific theory is in a person's mind, but the theory is a representation of a thing outside that mind. Whereas a moral or beauty claim is a claim about the mind.

Imagine an emotionless and goal-free AI system that had no capacity to hold a preference and could only judge whether the the logical relations among the semantic tokens in an utterance matched the referent objects it observed with it's senses. It could reach conclusions about scientific accuracy of claims, but the whole concept of beauty and morality would be nonsensical.

If there was nobody in the world that could experience some things as more beautiful than others, then nothing would be beautiful and nothing ugly. But if there were nobody in the world that could experience the Earth going around the Sun, there would still be the Earth going around the Sun.

You absolutely right that the moral values and beauty standards is something about minds. But why do you think that there is no something objective that can be said about intelligent conscious minds? If we have a general AI, for example, sure, its preference will be different, but are you sure that it is even possible to make human level AI that can understand us, truly understand us, and has no knowing what beauty or moral value is, and not having its own preferences, wishes, feeling of beauty, even if they likely be a bit different from ours, but still probably have a lot of commonality? I mean, I, being not a mathematician, can not deny beauty of mathematical theories and understand that mathematicians can experience deep satisfaction when they see them, similar what I may experience listening music, for example. Why the same can not happen with AI?

Yes, the sun and the planets exist in physical world outside of your mind, but so do other minds. And there must be laws governing their behavior too. More over, the process of generation new scientific theory, and new masterpiece, or new understanding of moral values in human brain, is not that much dissimilar. They require creativity, they require internal criticism and they require conviction power, otherwise others will not accept your ideas.