re after years can we say that christian morality is in article qkj c horus ap mchp sni de frank d s uucp frank o dwyer writes in article lsr ihinnsa exodus eng sun com emarsh hernes sun eng sun com eric marsh writes 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 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 simple theories with accurate predictions could not objectively be said to be more useful than a set of tarot cards you like those conclusions i don t i think that you are changing the meaning of values here perhaps it is time to backtrack and take a look at the word value n a fair equivalent or return for something such as goods or service monetary or material worth worth as measured in usefulness or importance merit a principle standard or quality considered inherently worthwhile or desirable precise meaning as of a word an assigned or calculated numerical quantity mus the relative duratation of a tone or rest the relative darkness or lightness of a color the distinctive quality of a speech or speech sound in context of a moral system definition four seems to fit best in terms of scientific usage definitions six or eight might apply note that these definitions do not mean the same thing no i m using definition or perhaps in both cases if there is no objective worth usefulness or importance then science has no objective worth usefulness or importance if nothing is inherently worthwhile or desirable then simple theories with accurate predictions are not inherently worthwhile or desirable do you see any flaws in this the problem is your use of the word objective along with values both definitions three and four are inherently subjective that is they are particular to a given individual or personal you see what one person may see as worthwhile another may see as worthless if on the other hand some things have objective worth usefulness or importance it would be interesting to know what they are again your form of measurement in this sentence that being of worth is subjective if you can provide an objective foundation for morality then that will be a good beginning i m not willing to attempt this until someone provides an objective basis for the notion that science is useful worthy or important in dealing with observed facts alternatively you could try to demonstrate to me that science is not necessarily useful worthy or important in any situation in other words i need to know how you use the term objective when i find that my usage of a word is different than the usage of that word given by another person i try to find a standard against which to judge that usage in most cases the dictionary is the standard i use here is a definiton of objective objective adj of or having to do with a material object as distinguished from a mental concept having actual existance a unenfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice b based on observable phenomenon by this definition science does not have an objective worth since the phrase objective worth is an oxymoron however you asked something a little differently this time you asked for an objective basis for a notion the fact that the use of science as an intellectual tool is responsible for changes in our world the changes are material and thus objective would provide an objective basis for an argument however the conclusion arrived at from that argument that science is good is subjective i think that the problem here is one of word usage take a little time and read the definitions of these words objective subjective worth value morality good evil i believe that if you think about the meaning of them for a while you will have to conclude that there is no such thing as an objective morality frank o dwyer i m not hatching that odwyer sse ie from hens by evelyn conlon eric
