tom_cr comments on Is my view contrarian? - Less Wrong

22 Post author: lukeprog 11 March 2014 05:42PM

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

Comments (94)

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

Comment author: tom_cr 13 March 2014 04:45:47PM 0 points [-]

I'm not conflating anything. Those are different statements, and I've never implied otherwise.

The statement "X is good," which is a value judgement, is also an empirical claim, as was my initial point. Simply restating your denial of that point does not constitute an argument.

"X is good" is a claim about the true state of X, and its relationship to the values of the person making the claim. Since you agree that values derive from physical matter, you must (if you wish to be coherent) also accept that "X is good" is a claim about physical matter, and therefore part of the world model of anybody who believes it.

If there is some particular point or question I can help with, don't hesitate to ask.

Comment author: nshepperd 13 March 2014 09:23:43PM -1 points [-]

If "X is good" was simply an empirical claim about whether an object conforms to a person's values, people would frequently say things like "if my values approved of X, then X would be good" and would not say things like "taking a murder pill doesn't affect the fact that murder is bad".

Alternative: what if "X is good" was a mathematical claim about the value of a thing according to whatever values the speaker actually holds?

Comment author: tom_cr 13 March 2014 10:03:10PM 0 points [-]

If "X is good" was simply an empirical claim about whether an object conforms to a person's values, people would frequently say things like "if my values approved of X, then X would be good"....

If that is your basis for a scientific standard, then I'm afraid I must withdraw from this discussion.

Ditto, if this is your idea of humor.

what if "X is good" was a mathematical claim about the value of a thing according to whatever values the speaker actually holds?

That's just silly. What if c = 299,792,458 m/s is a mathematical claim about the speed of light, according to what the speed of light actually is? May I suggest that you don't invent unnecessary complexity to disguise the demise of a long deceased argument.

No further comment from me.