Michael Gove to double spending per pupil in state schools

[SpontaneousOrder]

The fact you suffix "of course" discredits your likelihood of being taken seriously even by pro-choice advocates.

I'm correct. Whether I'm taken seriously or not is not particularly relevant to the truth of the matter.

[pjclarke]

So you're suggesting that the truth in a proposition is directly proportional to it's popularity?

I know fine well what I am suggesting, thanks, and that ain't it. You proposed that Objectivism had been mainstream for 70 years. Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to support the proposition? A literature search, position statements by academic philosophers, that kind of thing?

Thanks for an admirably prompt and clear answer to the question. Now, what differentiates that answer, presumably arrived at by the application of wholely and objectively valid moral principles, from your subjective opinion?

In other words, how do you know?

[doodab]

Philosophy, like religion should be consigned to Room 101. People who study them seem to think they know more about the world.

I'm with Aristophanes who in hisClouds suggests that the study of philosophy turns you into a , literally. Looking at all the PPE tossers in Westminster I'm inclined to agree with him.

Indeed. All the good bits got spun off as other subjects like logic and science. It's been more or less redundant twaddle since the enlightenment.

[doodab]

Morality is a tool which men use as a shortcut to arrive at pre-processed ethical principles - the science of ethics is hard and we don't want to be constantly analysing everything every time we interact with another human being - hence pre-analysed moral axioms such as do not steal, do not kill, etc.

It's not a science.

[doodab]

Er... philosophy is science.

No it isn't. Science may have it's roots in (natural) philosophy, but it became science a long time ago and what it left behind is everything that isn't science.

[doodab]

If you grade exams on a scale of A - E and say that grade A is excellent, B is above average, C is average, D below average and E is terrible, it's perfectly possible for everyone in a class to score enough to be excellent or above average (unless you grade on a curve).

Only if you distort the meaning of average so that it doesn't actually mean average at all.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You proposed that Objectivism had been mainstream for 70 years. Perhaps you'd care to provide some evidence to support the proposition? A literature search, position statements by academic philosophers, that kind of thing?

Whether something is mainstream or not, without an agreed benchmark, is a subjective evaluation. You're free to disagree with me - there's no need to get your knickers in a twist. It's not even part of any argument I'm making; just a passing comment (argumentum ad populum would be a logical fallacy here of course).

I personally regard 30 million book sales to date, 3 tulipty films and a few decent ones, plus cult icon status amongst the misguided Tea party movement in the states as enough to be considered 'mainstream'.

What was the point of this tangent again?

Thanks for an admirably prompt and clear answer to the question. Now, what differentiates that answer, presumably arrived at by the application of wholely and objectively valid moral principles, from your subjective opinion?

In other words, how do you know?

If you understood why man needs morality, and after that what it is, then I would be able to answer your question in a way that you understand.
You don't, so I can't.

What would be the point in arguing according to moral principles which you don't understand?


"Morality is objectively valid"
"No it's not - tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that abortion is morally legit"
"Ok. *explains from first principles -yawn-* See?"
"No - my morality is different to yours - your explanation only makes sense if you suppose that your morality is true, objectively speaking"
"Er.. yes. That's the point "

[SpontaneousOrder]

No it isn't. Science may have it's roots in (natural) philosophy, but it became science a long time ago and what it left behind is everything that isn't science.

Is logic not science then? How does one apply the scientific method without logic?

[DirtyDog]

Is logic not science then? How does one apply the scientific method without logic?

Haven't you already done the logic argument before?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...st-nutjob.html

[pjclarke]

It's not a science.

Indeed, and a bold declaration that the answer is 'Yes and I am correct' is profoundly antiscientific. Mathematics deals in absolute proofs, science is more usually about the balance of evidence. A scientist would say the answer is 'Yes' with a confidence of 98%, and here are my workings. Seems to me SO is attempting to position ethics more as a branch of mathematical logic, rather than a natural science. As if you could program a 'Deep Ethics' computer with all the variables and parameters, pose a moral question and get the 'correct' answer according to strictly validated moral principles, and eliminate all that silly subjectivity and emotion.

But who writes the code?

"Ok. *explains from first principles -yawn-* See?"

But you didn't, did you? Any more than you provided evidence that objectivity is 'mainstream', (sorry novel sales don't do it for me, and the Tea Party - Really?).

Instead you climbed up on the high horse and told me what I do and do not understand., and seemingly adopted the position that your subjective morality is actually objective.

This meeting of the 6th Form debating society is closed.