[lit-ideas] Re: Vedr: Three arguments against quantitative social "science" as science
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 17:05:44 -0230
With reference to your question (and eschewing all political commentary), I
would say, yes, the naturalistic fallacy (Hume's version) is indeed a logical
fallacy. An argument with all (only) empirical premises cannot validly conclude
with a moral or any value judgement. That's what I believe and I think you
ought to agree.
On his dacha,
Walter O
Quoting Eric <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> Compare and contrast: many believe that much of the turmoil in the near
> east is caused (con-caused) by the very existence of the state of Israel.
> Come onto stage the "humean" theorist who tells me that there is no "proof"
> of that.
>
>
>
> It is impossible to prove "beliefs" (values) by facts, is it not?
>
> One cannot demonstrate or prove values by facts--z.b., to show those who
> question the worth of Israel's existence are fools--but one CAN report the
> statistical results of opinion polls, and use those results to "update a web
> of beliefs" (Quine).
>
> Eric
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
