by Zottistan » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:43 pm

Jute wrote: Zottistan wrote: Where is this mystical line that separates what we are supposed to study scientifically and what we aren't?





The mechanics associated with them, their neurology and such, can, but yeah, those are unscientific claims since they assert the existence of a quality that exists only in our judgments of a thing, not of the thing-in-itself. Where is this mystical line that separates what we are supposed to study scientifically and what we aren't?The mechanics associated with them, their neurology and such, can, but yeah, those are unscientific claims since they assert the existence of a quality that exists only in our judgments of a thing, not of the thing-in-itself.

The "mystical" line is between the natural and the supernatural. Everything related to the material world. The "mystical" line is between the natural and the supernatural. Everything related to the material world.

So you call morals "unscientific"? That is a meaningless claim, and doesn't say anything about them.

They obviously still exist, and everyone has some kind of them.

Where is the difference between the two? And if the supernatural were shown to exist, why couldn't we just study it and incorporate it into our scientific understanding on the universe?It says that there's no scientific basis for them and that they're a purely psychosocial phenomenon.They exist in the sense that people project them onto the objective world. They don't exist objectively, except in the biological predispositions that cause people to have them in the first place. And even then, all that means is that matter somewhere is organized a certain way to do certain things, not that moral judgments reflect any actual objective quality of objects or people.Restraining my verbosity: they exist conceptually, not materially.