|
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Just because there are exceptions to be made, it does not mean that a universal value of "killing is wrong" should not be enforced or desirable. Assuming that there is no objective truth to be reached in morality and concluding that it is therefore not desirable to seek it is something that I find quite ludicrous. |
What I intended to show is that there are always counter-examples and, due to it's accumulation of data, science is always forced to re-analyse its theories and hypotheses.
For example, let me give you an example from the science I study:
Languages in which the verb usually comes at the end of a sentence (e.g. Japanese) tend to have postpositions (in Japanese, instead of saying ~I went to the house~, you say ~I (the) house to went~). Language in which the verb does not come at the end (e.g. English and Chinese) tend to have prepositions. This works like a charm in most cases, and there are hypotheses concerning a possible cognitive link between these two structures.
However, should a language not fit this criteria, rare though it is, we do not tell the speakers to change the grammar of their language so the data can fit our theory again. No, we go back to the sketching board and see what we can do to fit and formulate an ancillary hypothesis.
This comes to show that science will never ever reach an ultimate truth because there's no such thing as an ultimate experience. Unless we've experience all there is to be experience can we say we're somewhere close to the ultimate source of objective knowledge.
And, most importantly (I can't believe I forgot that), science describes, it does not say what the world should be like. In this case, science can say what most people think is right to do in certain scenarios, and why they think that way, but it doesn't entail from that the conclusion reached in these experiments is the right choice.
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|