From: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Subject: Objective Values 'v' Scientific Accuracy (was Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is)
Reply-To: tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U
Lines: 54

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 <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.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
