Posted: Feb 02, 2011 10:07 am
From Science and Ethics:
It's somewhat distressing that Harris keeps insisting that science can decide what we ought to value. The distinction between facts and values is well-known. That's why there are ethical committees trying to decide how to use new scientific findings on controversial issues - it simply can't be decided by science.
In economics you differentiate between positive economics and normative economics, where the first attempts to express statements of facts ("If you do policy X, thing Y will happen."), and the other expresses value judgements ("In a good society, policy X is adopted."). According to Harris, this distinction doesn't exist, yet it's obvious that it does!
I conclude that, while it is true that science cannot decide questions of value, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.
It's somewhat distressing that Harris keeps insisting that science can decide what we ought to value. The distinction between facts and values is well-known. That's why there are ethical committees trying to decide how to use new scientific findings on controversial issues - it simply can't be decided by science.
In economics you differentiate between positive economics and normative economics, where the first attempts to express statements of facts ("If you do policy X, thing Y will happen."), and the other expresses value judgements ("In a good society, policy X is adopted."). According to Harris, this distinction doesn't exist, yet it's obvious that it does!