Posted by alexandra_k on March 11, 2005, at 23:26:48
In reply to Re: Another go..., posted by zeugma on March 11, 2005, at 18:48:09
That was good Zeugma, I enjoyed that.
So there are shades of relativism (just as there are shades of realism) – to complicate matters slightly 
When you say that x is relative, then you are saying that x is relative to y
Or when you say that something is relative, then you are saying that something is relative to some other thing. So if you say ‘morality is relative’ then you are saying that what is right or wrong (as dictated by morality) is relative to something or other. Where it is relative to an individual, a society, a culture, or whatever.The way things appear is always relative to an observer. If you say ‘x appeared to be yellow or round or flat or whatever’ then it is always legitimate to ask ‘who did it appear that way to?’
The way things are in themselves (reality1) can be equally captured by saying that reality1 is relative to ‘the vantage point of god’ or ‘some observer who is miraculously not constrained by a point of view’ or ‘some objective bystander’ or some other myth.
The point is that we can never access that. An observer is always observing from some vantage point, some point of view. There is no such thing as an objective observer. And what that means is that we can never have knowledge of the way things are objectively in themselves (reality 1). Radical skepticism has shown us that (IMO)So what is left of objectivity?
What is left of the scientific enterprise?It is typically thought that science is about discovering this reality 1 – the way things are in themselves. But that (reality 1) is inaccessible to us as a matter of principle because we (people) are essentially constrained to a point of view and we cannot transcend that to access how things are aside from how they appear to us to be. Surely things are a certain way without an observer present (though there are problems there with the behavior of sub-atomic particles and co). But what is left of the project of science if we can never have access to the way things are in themselves from an objective point of view?
What science seems to be based on is the idea that multiple (trained) observers will agree or converge on their observations. These observations are supposed to be repeatable etc and it is that that shows them to be legitimate. The scientific method is a way of obtaining interesting observations (e.g., to manipulate things and then record what happens). Also about recording the whole process so that other observers can do the same thing and if all goes well observe the same thing themselves. What that method seems to give us, when all goes well, is how the world is relative to inter-subjective (rather than objective) observers.
Science, then, tells us about the nature of the inter-subjective world. How the world really is relative to multiple human observers who engage is systematic observation. I call this reality2. Inter-subjective reality. We can have knowledge of that. The final (complete) science should thus ‘predict and explain all the past present and future nerve hits (or experiences that result from certain kinds of neuron stimulations) of mankind’ (Quine, "Word and Object"). Whether the laws that predict and explain all that are actually to be found in reality 1 is essentially unknowable. There could be two or three or even an indefinite number of systems of laws that predict and explain the same observations of observers and there could be no further fact of the matter as to what the world is ‘really’ like.
But what do we make of the notion of ‘inter-subjectivity’? Is it realist, or is it subjectivist? I aim for the mid-point between both 
If you say ‘morality is relative to people (as moral agents)’ then IMO you have collapsed the distinction between realism and relativism.
You could try to say ‘if people didn’t exist then there wouldn’t be any ethics’
But it is also true that ‘if the universe didn’t exist then there wouldn’t be any science’
Ethics is the science (if I may be so bold) of what moral agents (human beings) should and should not do. If there aren’t any human beings (as moral agents) to act in the world then of course there wouldn’t be any ethics. Ethics is relative to human beings in that sense. But the issue is given that there are human beings (as moral agents) is morality inter-subjective (realist2) or relative to smaller sub- groups of people?The aim of science is often referred to as the ‘final science’. We may well never get there. But the point is that the final science will give us laws of nature that are able to predict and explain all the ‘past present and future nerve-hits of mankind’. I call my inter-subjectivity thesis a variety of realism. But I suppose I could also call it a variety of relativism. Given that I am aiming for a mid-point and all. But the notion is that I would like to do the same thing with ethics. The aim of ethics is thus the ‘final ethics’. We may well never get there. But the point is that the final ethics will give us laws of right and wrong action (at a suitable level of abstraction) that are able to deliver an answer as to whether any given action (in a certain context – which allows for certain sorts of cultural difference) is right or wrong.
So an individual can be wrong. Both with their observation and with their ethical judgement.
A group of individuals can be wrong. Both with the scientific theory of the day or with their ethical system.
In fact, the whole world can be wrong. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t an inter-subjective fact of the matter.
With regards to scientific truths and with regards to ethical truths.E.g. ‘Joseph Black saw caloric fluid flow from object x to object y’
Relative to the scientific theory of the day (that heat = caloric fluid) the statement is true.
Relative to the scientific theory of today (roughly that heat =molecular motion) the statement is either false or neither true nor false because caloric fluid doesn’t exist (so he certainly couldn’t have seen it!)
The truth of scientific claims have to be evaluated relative to a theorietical framework.E.g. ‘alexandra_k diverted the train thereby killing someone and that was a morally acceptable thing to do’.
Relative to Utilitarian theory the statement is true (it was the best of the available options).
Relative to Kantianism theory the statement is false (killing people is wrong).But can we compare the heat-fluid theory with modern atomic theory and figure out which is better?
We seem to want to say that the old theory was false, and the new theory is true...
Can we compare Utilitarianism and Kantianism and figure out which is better?
Maybe one of the theories is false and one of them is true...Kuhn "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" says we cannot (in the scientific case) – but I think we need to be able to in both cases to warrant the idea that progress is being made.
maybe most things we say today are (strictly speaking) false - in the sense that very few of them will remain when the final ethics / science agrees.
I have faith that we will converge in the end.
But I wouldn't dare call it a justified belief.I think we got to similar places in the end, but via different routes??
poster:alexandra_k
thread:468601
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050305/msgs/469898.html