objective values v scientific accuracy was re after years can we say that christian morality is frank i tried to mail this but it bounced it is fast moving out of t a scope but i didn t know if t a was the only group of the three that you subscribed to apologies to regular t a folks in article qjahh mrs horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes science the real world has its basis in values not the other way round as you would wish it you must be using values to mean something different from the way i see it used normally and you are certainly using science like that if you equate it to the real world science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the universe and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning those perceptions it has nothing to do with values as far as i can see values are well they are what i value they are what i would have rather than not have what i would experience rather than not and so on objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are applicable to everyone if there is no such thing as objective value then science can not objectively be said to be more useful than a kick in the head i don t agree science is useful insofar as it the predictions mentioned above are accurate that is insofar as what i think will be the effect on my perceptions of a time lapse with or without my input to the universe versus what my perceptions actually turn out to be but values are about whether i like in the loosest sense of the word the perceptions simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said to be more useful than a set of tarot cards i don t see why usefulness in science is synonomous with accuracy period tarot predictions are not useful because they are not accurate or can t be shown to be accurate science is useful because it is apparently accurate values objective or otherwise are beside the point no tommy
