Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Message-ID: <534@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 5-May-86 02:05:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.534
Posted: Mon May  5 02:05:13 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 04:39:15 EDT
References: <534@bu-cs.UUCP> <13627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 35

I better watch out; Tom Tedrick and I may end up agreeing
on something..

I too don't think that the Nazis could be considered
"scientific".  That was a case of borrowing the prestige
of science to rationalize unscientific ideas.

I would like to get a clarification of terms here.
When Tom says that "logic" is needed, does he mean more
than the formal symbol-manipulation game that some
metamathematicians call "logic"?  I think we should
reserve the term "symbolic logic" for the latter so
that a distinction can be made.  I think people would
certainly be better off with more logic, rationality,
and science, but I doubt that symbolic logic would
help very much (except for metamathematicians!).

Seems to me that a true science of morality requires
correct identification of the essential nature and
requirements of human beings first.  I do a lot of
reading, but outside the writings of Ayn Rand I find
mostly muddled ideas on this score.  Almost all
work on morality seems to start somewhere in the
middle, rather than building firm foundations.  In
any event, I hope it is clear that a science of
morality will probably not resemble a field of
mathematics, physics, biology, or even psychology.
Different subject matter requires specialized approaches.
The commonality of all sciences lies in the reasoning
methods employed, criteria for validity, and other
epistemological considerations, not in the structure
of the theories produced to organize the knowledge.

This should be obvious, but most scientists I meet
don't seem to know much about epistemology.