lunedì 1 agosto 2016

Moral Objectivism Mike Huemer

Notebook per
Moral Objectivism
Mike Huemer
Citation (APA): Huemer, M. (2016). Moral Objectivism [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Parte introduttiva
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 2
Moral Objectivism By Mike Huemer
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 5
1. What is the issue
Nota - Posizione 5
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 13
1.1. "Objectivism" and "relativism"
Nota - Posizione 13
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 13
"Objectivism" denotes the thesis that morality is objective. Subjectivism holds that morality is subjective. Relativism holds that morality is relative.
Nota - Posizione 14
DEF
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 17
1.2. What is 'morality'
Nota - Posizione 17
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 22
For example, "People must not use violence against one another" is a claim about morality in the objective
Nota - Posizione 23
ESEMPIO OGGETTIVISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 23
On the other hand, "In Xanadu, the use of violence is strongly condemned" is not a value judgement; it can be verified or refuted purely by anthropological observation. It is a statement about morality in the subjective sense.
Nota - Posizione 25
SOGGETTIVO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 27
If there were no people, would there still be chemistry?
Nota - Posizione 27
OGGETTIVISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 41
1.3. "Values are subjective" = "All values are subjective"
Nota - Posizione 41
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 42
It may be asked, what shall we say if it turns out that some values are objective and some are not? The answer I give, by stipulation, is that in that case objectivism is true and subjectivism is false;
Nota - Posizione 43
OGGETTIVISMO VERO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 48
1.4. Three ways of being non-' objective'
Nota - Posizione 48
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 48
Suppose I offer the opinion, "Colors are objective."
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 50
It means that a color - redness, say - is a property of the objects
Nota - Posizione 50
PROPRIETÀ
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 51
Hence, to say that morality is objective is to say that whether an action is right depends on the nature of that action;
Nota - Posizione 52
NATURA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 54
1. If everything is non-x; e.g., nothing has value or nothing is red.
Nota - Posizione 55
PRIMA NEGAZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 56
2. If some things are x, but whether a thing is x depends not just on that thing's intrinsic nature but on facts about the subject, i.e., the person who says or observes that the thing is x, as well.
Nota - Posizione 58
2 NEGAZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 63
3. If it is neither true nor false that something is x.
Nota - Posizione 63
3 NEGAZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 74
1.5. Several relativist theories
Nota - Posizione 74
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 75
1. Moral judgements are simply universally in error;
Nota - Posizione 75
CREDENZE DEL RELATIVISTA. 1
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 76
2. Moral 'judgements' are not genuine assertions. They don't actually claim anything about the world. Instead, they are mere expressions of emotion,
Nota - Posizione 77
EMOZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 78
3. "x is good" means "I like x."
Nota - Posizione 78
SOGGETIVISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 78
"x is good" means "x is ordained by my society."
Nota - Posizione 79
SOCIOLOGIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 79
5. What people do when they make a moral judgement is to project their subjective mental state out into the world. They confuse their emotions with some object in the world and mistakenly take the feeling in them to be some property of the object.
Nota - Posizione 80
DIFESA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 83
6. Morals (in the objective sense) are established by convention;
Nota - Posizione 83
CONVEMZIONI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 86
1.6. What the issue is not
Nota - Posizione 86
TITILO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 88
I am not interested here in whether morality is 'absolute' in any of the other senses than "objective".
Nota - Posizione 89
ASSOLUTO=OGGETTIVO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 92
I am not arguing that we can know moral truths with absolute precision or certainty.
Nota - Posizione 93
ESSENZA E CONOSCENZA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 93
I am not considering the issue of whether one should be tolerant of people with differing practices or differing views.
Nota - Posizione 94
TOLLERANZA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 101
2. The consequences of relativism
Nota - Posizione 101
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 102
Here I will argue that, unsurprisingly, moral relativism undermines morality and leads to nihilism
Nota - Posizione 102
NICGILISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 106
Since rational judgement presupposes some ground apart from the judgement on which for it to be based, the denial of objectivism implies the intrinsic impossibility of rational moral judgement, since said denial means that moral values cannot have any independent existence apart from the mind.
Nota - Posizione 107
ARGOMENTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 122
What this shows is that if one knows moral relativism to be true, then one cannot rationally believe any moral judgement.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 127
Subjectivist philosophers, including Mackie, standardly draw a distinction between first- and second-order moral views and hope by this to show that they can maintain their 'second-order' view without giving up any of their first-order moral views. A 'first-order' moral view is a claim about what is good or bad, right or wrong; while a second-order moral view is about the nature of first-order moral views (e.g., what it is for something to be good or bad or right or wrong).
Nota - Posizione 130
MACKIE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 130
The argument, presumably, is that since first- and second-order views are about different things, a second-order view cannot be in conflict with a first-order one, so we won't have to reject any first-order moral views as a result of accepting moral relativism.
Nota - Posizione 132
ORDINI DIVRRSI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 137
it makes no sense to say, "Well, I agree that unicorns are not real, but I still think this is a unicorn."
Nota - Posizione 138
NONSENSE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 139
3. Arguments for subjectivism
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 140
3.1. Cultural variance of moral codes
Nota - Posizione 140
TITOLO. CULTURA E DISSCCORDO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 144
I think the level of disagreement is exaggerated. I think it would be widely agreed that courage, honesty, and kindness are virtues;
Nota - Posizione 145
DISACCORDI ESSGERATI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 146
Disagreements in questions of history or biology or cosmology do not show that there are no facts about these subjects.
Nota - Posizione 147
DISACCORDO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 151
Why is it that people argue interminably about religion but not about mathematics? It is not because numbers are objective and the existence of God and similar issues are subjective. It is, mainly, because ordinary people do not care about the properties of numbers. But they do care immensely about God, life after death, and the like.
Nota - Posizione 153
RELI GIONE E MATEMATICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 159
there are plenty of perfectly legitimate fields of study that are not exact sciences.
Nota - Posizione 159
SCIENZE SOCIALI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 159
3.2. Simplicity
Nota - Posizione 160
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 160
Second, it has been argued from time to time that moral relativism presents a simpler picture of the universe than objectivism. Objectivism postulates these entities, objective moral values, that we could explain the world just as easily if not more easily without. Therefore, the burden is on the objectivist to prove the existence of these things.
Nota - Posizione 162
BURDEN OF PROOF
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 162
I think this argument is insincere; that is, nobody ever became a relativist because of this.
Nota - Posizione 163
FALSO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 164
mathematical relativism: Objectivism postulates these entities, objective numbers and numerical relationships, that we could explain the world just as easily if not more easily without. Therefore, the burden is on the objectivist to prove the existence of these things.
Nota - Posizione 166
RELATIVISMO MATEMAYICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 171
If anything, we should say that the burden of proof is on the moral relativist, for advancing a claim contrary to common sense.
Nota - Posizione 172
SENSO COMUNE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 172
3.3. Where does moral knowledge come from?
Nota - Posizione 173
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 176
It is an old platitude in moral philosophy that you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', so it is supposed that what I have just enunciated is impossible. Well, in one sense, you cannot derive an ought from an is - in the sense that the prescription will not follow analytically, or just in virtue of the definitions of terms. But in another sense, you can derive an ought from an is - i.e., it will follow necessarily and a priori.
Nota - Posizione 179
OUGHT IS
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 180
examination of just about any mathematical proposition would reveal this mode of cognition - you cannot derive most theorems solely on the basis of definitions. You must also have some intuitive judgements, usually made explicit in the form of axioms.
Nota - Posizione 181
ANALOGIA MATEMATICA
Nota - Posizione 182
ASSIOMI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 185
moral intuition is just the general faculty of reason applied to a particular subject matter, viz., values,
Nota - Posizione 185
INTUIZIONISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 188
For instance, it may be argued that communism is a bad system of government on the basis that it has caused tens of millions of deaths, that it impoverishes the country in which it is adopted, and that it greatly restricts people's freedom. I think that is a good argument. It certainly is not some kind of simple logical fallacy, as the concept of 'the naturalistic fallacy' would presumably imply, since I am deriving a moral judgement from other, non-moral judgements.
Nota - Posizione 191
COMU ISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 195
3.4. The political argument
Nota - Posizione 195
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 195
Perhaps the main motivation for relativism among contemporary intellectuals is the appeal to the virtue of tolerance.
Nota - Posizione 196
TOLLERANZA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 200
The first obvious reply to this political argument is that it is a non sequitur - that is, even if true, all it shows is that it would be advantageous to somehow convince people to believe relativism; but it does not show that relativism is actually true.
Nota - Posizione 202
NN SEQUITUR
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 202
Second, since this kind of argument would only move people who believe in the value of toleration anyway, it would seem at least as reasonable to simply postulate tolerance as an objective value,
Nota - Posizione 203
TOLLERANZA OGGETTIVA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 205
it is objectivism that leads to toleration and subjectivism that leads to intolerance - for my view encourages an objective and rational attitude towards public policy and other moral questions (Cf. above, section 3.3), whereas subjectivism naturally tends towards an unreasoned and arbitrary approach
Nota - Posizione 207
RELATIVISTI LITIGIOSI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 208
emotional value system might lead, as it usually has in the past, to fanaticism, xenophobia, etc.
Nota - Posizione 209
EMOZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 212
examples: John Locke's political theories, which have probably led more than any others to democracy and respect for universal human rights, are a good example of the kind of conclusions that a serious attempt to identify objective moral values usually leads to.
Nota - Posizione 213
LOCKE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 214
Orthodox Marxism holds that moral values are not objective but are mere fictions invented by the ruling class to further its class interests (much like religion). The German Nazis held that all values are determined by one's race, that the right was just what accorded with the will of the people, and that moral values thus had no objectivity.
Nota - Posizione 217
NAZI COMU
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 219
4. Several versions of relativism refuted
Nota - Posizione 219
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 223
4.1. Value judgements as universally false
Nota - Posizione 223
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 223
It implies, among other things, that it is not the case that people generally ought to eat when hungry; that Hitler was not a bad person; that happiness is not good; and so on.
Nota - Posizione 224
AFFAMATI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 228
This discussion makes me feel like G.E. Moore, who refuted skepticism about the existence of external objects by making a certain gesture and observing, "Here is one hand," and, making another gesture, "and here is another."
Nota - Posizione 229
IL GESTO DI MOORE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 233
4.2. Moral judgements as expressions of sentiment
Nota - Posizione 234
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 234
Sometimes Hume talks as if he thought moral statements were expressions not of judgements but of emotions. On this view, "x is good" is comparable to "Congratulations," "Hurray," "Ouch," and other non-assertive utterances.
Nota - Posizione 235
HUME
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 236
appeal to introspection. The making of a normative judgement is experienced as just that - making a judgement: i.e., as a matter of good phenomenology, when one considers a moral issue, it seems clear, one is engaged in that mental process known as judgement;
Nota - Posizione 238
INTROSPEZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 248
Second, moral judgements can properly be called "true" or "false". If somebody says something that is not an assertion - such as "Ouch!", then you cannot 'disagree' - that makes no sense.
Nota - Posizione 249
VERO O FALSO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 251
Third, it's pretty obvious that, linguistically, prescriptions take the form of statements, and we all recognize them as such. They use the indicative mood, containing a subject and predicate, &c. And I don't see any special reason for thinking that there is something deceptive about our language (and presumably virtually all others).
Nota - Posizione 253
LINGUISTICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 253
Fourth, normative judgements can stand in logical relations to other propositions. For instance, the statement, "I should return this book to the library" straightforwardly entails the admittedly objective statements I can return this book
Nota - Posizione 255
RELAZIONI LOGICHE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 261
4.3. "x is good" as synonymous with "I like x"
Nota - Posizione 261
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 262
It makes sense to say, "I like it, but is it really good?" but it does not make sense to say "I like it, but do I like it?" nor "It's good, but is it really good?"
Nota - Posizione 263
CONTRADD LINGUISTICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 269
4.4. "x is good" as a synonym for "x is ordained by my society"
Nota - Posizione 270
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 270
namely, to call something good is to express a value judgement, but to say something is ordained by society is to offer a descriptive judgement of anthropology which could be confirmed or refuted purely by observation. This is another case of the naturalistic fallacy.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 272
It is possible to doubt whether what society ordains is good but it is unintelligible to doubt whether what is good is good or whether society ordains what it ordains.
Nota - Posizione 273
PARADOSSO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 276
4.5. Moral judgements as projection
Nota - Posizione 276
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 276
confusing one's emotions with physical objects
Nota - Posizione 277
COSE E EMOZION
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 280
this kind of theory could be proposed for any quality. That is, for any property that we seem to sense in objects in the world, it could always be asserted that we are projecting our subjective mental state out into the world, and it would be difficult or impossible to refute the assertion.
Nota - Posizione 282
VALE X TUTTE LE TEORIE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 286
There isn't anything like a single feeling I have when I contemplate each of the things I consider to be good, as the theory would appear to predict. I think Newton's work on the calculus is extremely good, but I don't feel emotional about it at all. It appears to me that I make evaluations on intellectual grounds.
Nota - Posizione 288
EMOZIONI VARIEGATE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 292
if this theory is true, then why doesn't everybody wind up with a moral code that says he may do whatever he feels like and other people may only do things that he likes - or rather, at least, one that picks out the same things as being good as happen to be liked by that individual?
Nota - Posizione 294
NON CONSEGUENZIALE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 296
it is usual for a person to have a positive sentiment towards something because he believes it to be right or to have a negative sentiment because he thinks it is wrong. That is the way we normally seem to experience the connection between evaluations and emotions. That is why a psychologist would attempt to eliminate a patient's guilt by means convincing him that he is not a bad person, and not the other way around. The theory in question reverses the causal direction.
Nota - Posizione 299
SENSO DI COLPA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 299
Finally, the acceptance of this theory would presumably cause us to lose the inclination to moralize, for once we see the truth of it, we would see that all moral statements are intrinsically confused and, therefore, false or unintelligible. But I have said above (section 4.1) that the denial of all moral judgements is absurd and that I do not see how any philosophical premises that could be used to justify the theory in question could be more evident than certain value judgements (indeed, more probable than the disjunction of all possible value judgements).
Nota - Posizione 303
NICHILISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 306
4.6. Morals as a matter of convention
Nota - Posizione 306
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 309
The existence of money and what counts as currency are literally established by convention. Imagine a situation in which the United States government changes our currency. It begins to print money with new kinds of pictures on it to replace the old money. A law is passed saying that the old money is no longer legal tender, and the citizens go along with it. We all start using the new money and nobody uses the old ex-money anymore. Now in that situation, would these green pieces of paper I have in my wallet with pictures of dead presidents still have monetary value? The answer is no. They would literally cease to be money in virtue of the conventions we established. If right and wrong were established by convention, then we should be able to say something similar about them. We should be able to imagine a situation in which our society establishes different conventions and, in virtue of that fact, things that are presently right cease to be right and things that are presently wrong cease to be wrong. What would that be like? Suppose Americans were to decide that the communists were right after all and start electing socialists to government offices.
Nota - Posizione 317
MONETA E COMUNISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 330
4.7. The argument generalized
Nota - Posizione 330
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 337
true
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 350
5. Summary
Nota - Posizione 350
TITOLO

Are Science and Religion in Conflict? Peter Harrison

Notebook per
Are Science and Religion in Conflict?
Peter Harrison
Citation (APA): Harrison, P. (2016). Are Science and Religion in Conflict? [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Parte introduttiva
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 2
Are Science and Religion in Conflict? By Peter Harrison
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 13
We can divide this question into three components. First, do people generally believe that science and religion are in conflict? Second, does the historical record suggest an enduring or inevitable clash between science and religion? Third, ought science and religion be in conflict?
Nota - Posizione 15
TRE QUESTIONI DISTINTE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 19
Conflict in the PresentThere’s
Nota - Posizione 19
SOCIOLOGIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 20
Jonathan Hill provides an excellent survey of American attitudes toward science and religion in his essay “Do Americans Believe Science and Religion Are in Conflict?” According to Hill, while the data suggest that a slight majority of Americans believe that science and religion are in conflict, they do so for different reasons.
Nota - Posizione 22
CREDENZA DEL CONFLITTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 25
According to the latest Pew survey, from October 2015, the primary issue for these people is evolution, with general concerns about belief in God and miracles in second place, and abortion
Nota - Posizione 27
EVOLUZIONE E ABORTO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 32
In sum, very few Americans— seventeen percent of the total sample— believe in a genuine conflict
Nota - Posizione 33
CONFLITTO GENUINO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 34
Conflict in the Past
Nota - Posizione 34
TITOLO. STORIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 38
Following the pioneering work of British historian John Hedley Brooke and American historians David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, most now believe that what we see in the past is a complex range of relations between science and religion— some negative, many more positive, and others more or less neutral.
Nota - Posizione 42
RELAZIONI DIFFERENTI PER LO PIÙ POSITIVE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 44
If theology is a science, the idea of a conflict between theology and “science” makes a lot less sense.
Nota - Posizione 44
SCIENZA TEOLOGICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 47
a key difference was that past disciplines such as natural philosophy and natural history were not naturalistic in the same way as modern science today. Indeed, they often included references to God and were directed towards the discovery of God’s design of the natural world. Religion, in short, was to some extent integrated into both natural history and natural philosophy.
Nota - Posizione 49
STORIA E FILOSOFIA NATURALE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 54
Johannes Kepler regarded his astronomy as a form of divine praise, while Robert Boyle characterized scientists as “priests of nature.” Other scientists saw their work as having religious goals, including Isaac Newton, who hoped the principles outlined in his famous Principia Mathematica might promote “belief of a Deity.”
Nota - Posizione 56
SCIENZIATI E RELIGIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 57
Francis Bacon, for example, maintained that modern science could help the human race re-establish its God-given dominion
Nota - Posizione 58
DOMINIO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 58
Bacon also insisted that because scientific advances promoted human welfare, science was itself a form of Christian charity.
Nota - Posizione 59
CARITÀ
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 63
this was not a straightforward case of science-religion conflict at all. At the time, there was compelling scientific evidence against the Copernican view defended by Galileo. Moreover, the condemnation of Galileo was quite atypical of the Catholic Church, which had for centuries been the most prominent supporter of astronomical research in Europe.
Nota - Posizione 65
GALILEO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 67
we should remember that Darwin had both religious supporters and scientific detractors, suggesting that there was more going on that just straightforward “conflict.”
Nota - Posizione 68
DARWIN
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 70
Ought Science and Religion Be in Conflict?
Nota - Posizione 70
TITOLO. EPISTEMOLOGIA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 79
Draper and White offer extensive and influential catalogues of putative instances of conflict. The Galileo affair figures prominently in both, along with historical examples now discredited (or complicated) by historical research: Hypatia’s death at the hands of a Christian mob; medieval belief in a flat earth; papal excommunication of a comet; the Church’s ban on dissection; Copernicus’s dethroning of humanity; and Bruno’s execution as a martyr to science.
Nota - Posizione 82
DRAPER
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 84
Draper’s book is less about science and religion than science and Catholicism. It was stimulated in part by contemporary issues concerning Catholicism, not least the promulgation of the controversial and conservative Syllabus of Errors (1864) and the declaration of papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council (1869– 70).
Nota - Posizione 86
MOTIVAZIONI DI DRAPER
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 86
White had been wounded by staunch clerical opposition to the founding of Cornell University,
Nota - Posizione 87
MOTIVAZIONI DI WHITE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 88
a key element of the motivations of Huxley and Tyndall was their desire to professionalize science, advance its social status, and liberate it from the domination of the Anglican clergy.
Nota - Posizione 89
TYNDALL STATUS
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 95
Specific events— such as parochial controversies concerning the teaching of evolution in schools or, on a larger scale, the tragic events of 9/ 11— are supposed to exemplify this larger clash between science and religion.
Nota - Posizione 97
EVENTI SPECIFICI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 102
Thus “Science Must Destroy Religion” is the mantra of Sam Harris and the new atheists. This is a moral imperative: Harris urges scientists to relinquish their sentimental religious
Nota - Posizione 104
IMPERATIVO ETICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 118
There are many reasons to resist this tendency. As philosopher Ray Monk reminds us, there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of these questions concern the things that are most important of all: faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness
Nota - Posizione 122
LE QUESTIONI PIÙ IMPORTANTI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 130
Discussion Summary
Nota - Posizione 130
TITOLO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 153
More broadly, this discussion leads us to two further sets of exploratory questions. One has to do with the nature of science, how scientific theories change over time, and the justification of scientific theories. The other concerns the more general question of the foundation of and warrant for beliefs:
Nota - Posizione 155
NATIRA DELLA SCIENZA E DELLA GIUSTIFICA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 161
2 reasons: Science depends on propositions being falsifiable. Religion is based on revelation and its propositions cannot be falsified.
Nota - Posizione 162
D. 2 DEMARCAZIONI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 190
1. The idea that falsifiability is a criterion of scientific knowledge was proposed in the middle of the last century by Karl Popper, who was seeking to find a way of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. This was the so-called “demarcation” issue, for which Popper relied upon some of the ruling trends in contemporary logical positivism. But while falsificationism represents an improvement over naive inductivism, and while many scientists still believe that if offers a distinguishing mark of genuine scientific knowledge, most philosophers of science have long since abandoned it— and for good reason.
Nota - Posizione 194
POPPER SUPERATO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 195
(Lakatos spoke about “research programs,” and Thomas Kuhn spoke about “paradigms.”)
Nota - Posizione 196
LAKATOS KUHN
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 197
Copernican hypothesis, for example, should have been falsified by the apparent lack of stellar parallax at the time. But the hypothesis had other things going for it, and, eventually, a way was found to account for this and other anomalies.
Nota - Posizione 198
FALSIFICAZIONE DI COPERNICO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 198
Finally, there are many instances of what philosophers call the “underdetermination,” which arise when the empirical data simply do not provide information
Nota - Posizione 199
QUINE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 200
2. Science is not “based” on logic either. Many sciences do rely on logical induction, but there are numerous problems with naive versions of inductivism (as Popper realized).
Nota - Posizione 202
LA SCIENZA NN È LOGICA. LIMITI DELL INDUTTIVISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 220
Often they will invent ad hoc placeholders to fend off falsification. Postulating the existence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” is an instance of this.
Nota - Posizione 221
ENTITÀ METAFISICHE DELLA SCIENZA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 230
any evidentialist framework must rest upon premises that are themselves ultimately not capable of justification— otherwise the process of justification would never end. Call these “foundational beliefs” or “basic beliefs.” Some theistic philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, have suggested that belief in God is one such properly basic belief. It would then be true that this belief was not subject to the principle of falsification.
Nota - Posizione 233
PLANTINGA E LE CREDENZE DI FONDO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 264
Typically, advocates of inherent conflict will define science and religion in global terms. For example, science = falsifiable claims and religion = non-falsifiable claims; or science = reason, religion = faith.
Nota - Posizione 265
I CONFLITTUALI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 292
I provide a body of evidence in The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998) that shows how medieval and patristic exegetes typically read Genesis in a non-literal way.
Nota - Posizione 293
GENESI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 293
On the modernity of young earth creationism, go no further than Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists
Nota - Posizione 294
CREAZIONISMO
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 378
I’m not pointing this out to claim that Judaism is somehow “better,” but that Christianity’s *modern expression* (take careful note of that) includes a large number of non-college educated priests, pastors and ministers.
Nota - Posizione 379
L EDUCAZIONE DEI PRETI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 411
Now, through all of this I’m NOT defending the religious views of the bible, or of its adherents. What I’m attempting to do is to show that, properly understood, the cultural origins of this text should have no conflict whatsoever with science.
Nota - Posizione 413
BIBBIA RETTAMENTE INTESA
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 415
The Republican “Contract with America” of the 90’ s had a tremendous impact, especially on evangelical voters, precisely because of their fundamental orientation towards a social contract as a template for how life should be. In the bible, the mode of social contract between God and man evolved tremendously over time.
Nota - Posizione 417
CONTRACT
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 432
Yuval Levin’s book “Fractured Republic,” hits upon these same themes. The Left views the social contact between government and man through the filter of the 60’ s and seeks a return to that golden age, whereas the Right views the social contract between government and man through the filter of the Reagan era.
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 456

sabato 30 luglio 2016

Why Voters Don’t Buy It When Economists Say Global Trade Is Good Greg Mankiw

Notebook per
Why Voters Don’t Buy It When Economists Say Global Trade Is Good
Greg Mankiw
Citation (APA): Mankiw, G. (2016). Why Voters Don’t Buy It When Economists Say Global Trade Is Good [Kindle Android version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

Parte introduttiva
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 2
Why Voters Don’t Buy It When Economists Say Global Trade Is Good By Greg Mankiw
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 7
You see it in Donald Trump’s railing against immigrants and trade agreements. It may well be part of Hillary Clinton’s shift, under pressure from Bernie Sanders, against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she once embraced as “the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade.” You certainly see it in the British decision to exit the European Union,
Nota - Posizione 10
TRUMP CLINTON BREXIT
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 13
Voters clearly aren’t listening to economists.
Nota - Posizione 13
ECONOMISTI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 20
35 percent of registered voters thought the United States gained from globalization, while 55 percent thought it lost.
Nota - Posizione 21
ELETTORI
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 32
If people were just looking out for themselves, their view of globalization would be determined by the industry in which they worked. Those in industries with a high concentration of exports should be favorable to an open economy, while those in industries that have to compete with imports should be opposed. In actuality, however, people’s attitudes about free trade and offshore outsourcing are unrelated to the characteristics of the industry in which they are employed.
Nota - Posizione 35
MUTZ
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 36
voters embrace policies based on the broader national interest.
Nota - Posizione 37
NATIONAL INTEREST
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 49
As Mr. Mansfield and Ms. Mutz put it, “trade preferences are driven less by economic considerations and more by an individual’s psychological worldview.”
Nota - Posizione 50
PSICOLOGIA LOSS AVERSION
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 50
The more years of schooling people have, the more likely they are to reject anti-globalization attitudes.
Nota - Posizione 51
EDUCAZIONE
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 51
Consistent with this, Andrew McGill reports in The Atlantic that the recent Brexit vote was strongly correlated with education.
Nota - Posizione 53
BREXIT
Evidenzia (giallo) - Posizione 54
In the long run, therefore, there is reason for optimism. As society slowly becomes more educated from generation to generation, the general public’s attitudes toward globalization should move toward the experts’.
Nota - Posizione 56
LONG RUN

Contro la medicalizzazione della società

Un tale spara sulla folla, viene catturato e messo in cella, che farne?
E’ pazzo? Forse sì: non ha il controllo sulle sue azioni.
O forse no: semplicemente per qualche motivo gli piace l’idea di sparare sulla folla e oggi ha deciso di farlo.
Come scegliere tra le due opzioni? Follia o preferenza estrema?
Il dilemma vale per il pazzo, per il drogato, ma anche per il bambino distratto: medicalizzare o moralizzare?
Lo stragista si realizza uccidendo il prossimo che non conosce? All’alcolizzato piace il vino? Il bambino distratto preferisce fare il lazzarone?
Le ho provate tutte per capire come giudicare in modo rigoroso ma nulla mi soddisfa. Si va a occhio in modo inaffidabile.
Davvero, non capisco come agiscano i “periti” di un processo che lascia adito a dubbi del genere (e ce ne sono tanti!): secondo me in base a mere condizioni del tutto arbitrarie. Non mi fido.
Del resto la vicenda dell’omosessualità: è stata tolta dal novero delle malattie per alzata di mano nel congresso di psichiatria del 1972  senza che la scienza avesse prodotto nulla di nuovo in materia. Mere convenzioni.
C’è chi la fa facile: poiché non riesco a capire le preferenze dello stragista, allora non le considero preferenze. Alla faccia del rigore! francamente, non saprei se sia più pericoloso chi pensa in questo modo o lo stragista (che se va al potere giudicherà probabilmente con lo stesso criterio tutti noi).
Altri dicono: guarda se si pente. L’assunto: quando una presunta “preferenza estrema” è volatile allora non è una vera preferenza. Ahimé, pentirsi è un atto assai sospetto quando pentirsi conviene. Il drogato che implora il tuo aiuto per “uscire dal tunnel” potrebbe cercare una scusa per ottenere qualcosa a basso prezzo. La medicalizzazione della scuola scusa (e dà privilegi) a chi fornisce basse prestazioni….
D’altronde, l’alcolizzato beve quando potrebbe evitarlo: se gli offri una somma di denaro per non bere quel bicchiere lui si astiene e incassa, chiara dimostrazione che puo’ farlo se solo lo volesse. Gli economisti hanno notato che quando il costo dell’eroina aumenta i consumi decrescono, alla faccia della dipendenza.
Alcuni puntano forte sul ruolo delle medicine: se una preferenza cambia assumendo delle medicine, allora non è una preferenza ma una malattia. Non mi convince: posso essere più disinibito bevendo un bicchierino, ma questo non significa che la vergogna sia una malattia. Così come io bevo un bicchierino per risolvere i miei problemi umorali, nulla vieta al depresso di prendersi il prozac o altre medicine senza per questo dover essere considerato malato.
Sento dire: solo il folle si sbaglia di continuo senza imparare la lezione! Sbagliato, anche molti che reputiamo sani fanno lo stesso, i bias sistematici sono acclarati. Molte convinzioni scientifiche fondate (dall’evoluzione all’età della terra) non sono credute vere da molti, ma non siamo per questo in presenza di folli.
Poi c’è il “chimico”: quando agiamo in virtù di eventi chimici che accadono nel nostro cervello, allora non possiamo parlare di “preferenze”. Ma anche qui giungiamo subito ad un punto morto: gli eventi e i comportamenti possono essere correlati ma sul nesso di causalità la scienza è silente. E poi, anche l’obeso ha un metabolismo strano ma non per questo l’obesità è necessariamente una malattia, mantenere un peso forma è nelle sue possibilità, anche se richiede uno sforzo maggiore.
cerott
Torniamo al dilemma: follia o preferenza? Moralismo o medicalizzazione? Qui mi sa che bisogna prendere posizione senza molti elementi concreti a supporto, facendo prevalere la convenienza sociale. Seguendo le orme di William James o Blaise Pascal: se un problema metafisico non ha una soluzione che s’impone allora è bene soppesare le conseguenze delle soluzioni in concorrenza.
E allora vediamole queste “convenienze”.
L’approccio moralista produce i migliori incentivi: se sei responsabilizzato ti impegnerai di più a prescindere dai tuoi limiti.
L’approccio medico non inficia l’adozione delle migliori terapie: se sei malato verrai curato meglio.
Ora, l’approccio moralista non pregiudica le cure: il fatto di essere responsabile non mi impedisce di prendere una pastiglia d’aiuto.
Al contrario,  l’approccio medico pregiudica gli incentivi: se sono malato ho diritto a corsie preferenziali.
E’ chiaro che il primo approccio s’impone.
Obiezione: ma facendo la scelta moralista non produciamo giudizi sballati?: ok, un ciccione potrebbe astenersi dal mangiare l’ennesimo panino se solo lo volesse ma cio’ non toglie che forse per lui l’operazione è più difficile che per me, giudicarlo è rischioso.
Risposta: ma questo si è sempre saputo e il problema è stato superato: esiste una giustizia umana e una giustizia divina; noi abbiamo diritto ad esprimere un giudizio morale su un comportamento sbagliato ben sapendo che quello definitivo sulla persona lo pronuncerà solo chi puo’ osservare tutte le variabili in campo.
Ma il mondo secolarizzato ha espulso il tribunale divino dal suo orizzonte cosicché la “medicalizzazione” della società avanza a passi da gigante.