Amanojack comments on What is Metaethics? - Less Wrong

31 Post author: lukeprog 25 April 2011 04:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (550)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Amanojack 28 April 2011 04:20:08AM 2 points [-]

Your criticisms of "truth" are not so far off, but you're essentially saying that parts of science are wrong so you can be wrong, too. No actually, you think it is OK to flounder around in the field when you're just starting out. Sure, but not when you don't even know what it is you're supposed to be studying - if anything! This is not analogous to physics, where the general goal was clear from the very beginning: figure out what physical mechanisms underly macro-scale phenomena, such as the hardness of metal, conductivity, magnetic attraction, gravity, etc.

You're just running around to whatever you can grab onto to avoid the main point that there is nothing close to a semblance of delineation of what this "field" is actually about, and it is getting tiresome.

Comment author: Peterdjones 28 April 2011 12:28:04PM 1 point [-]

I think the claim that ethicists don't know at all what they are studying is unfounded.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 28 April 2011 04:34:03AM 1 point [-]

This is not analogous to physics, where the general goal was clear from the very beginning: figure out what physical mechanisms underly macro-scale phenomena, such as the hardness of metal, conductivity, magnetic attraction, gravity, etc.

I believe this is hindsight bias.

Comment author: Amanojack 28 April 2011 04:45:27AM 0 points [-]

Ugg in 65,000 BC: Why water fire no mix? Why rock so hard? Why tree have shadow?

Eugine in 2011: What is the True Theory of Something-or-Other?