Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jayajay 3510 days ago
"WAIT GUYS! Half A has 1 more vote than Half B. Looks like we don't need to do any science, let's just assume the people from Half A were right".

Democracy and religion share beds, occasionally, I might even say they were married on upon a time. Barbarism indeed.
1 comments
wtbob 3510 days ago
Why do you assume all questions are answerable by science? Science says that if you assemble materials in a particular way you will get a solar panel, and if you assemble other materials in a different way then you get a toaster; it can't say which you should do.

Science says that a human being is a collection of genes which are formed at conception; it can't say anything about abortion, murder, capital punishment or self-defense. Those aren't topics on which it is competent: all it can do is inform discussions thereon, by affirming, 'yes, we are talking about a human being in this case, but in this other we are not.'

You simply can't address every issue with an appeal to science.

link
jayajay 3509 days ago
I never actually assumed that. The scientific method applies to systems which have a set of observables. Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed. Therefore, it seems more prudent to ask "why" (i.e. applying the scientific method, or some more general inquisitive process) Half A and Half B disagree rather than simply assuming one half is correct and moving on. In the latter case, there is no learning.
link
wtbob 3509 days ago
> Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed.

I honestly think social science is only slightly more scientific than astrology.

But even were it not, science is not capable of answering questions like what one ought to do. Sure, A & B disagree; it's interesting why they do; maybe they're both wrong; maybe they're both partially-correct; but what should be done about it? Science can only say what is, not what ought to be.

You have to make some philosophical assumptions (e.g. utilitarianism) in order to even think that science can provide direction, and even then you will get bogged down in questions like, 'what is the greatest good for the greatest number?'

As an aside to the downvoters: don't downvote if you think I'm wrong; please share how you think science can answer a question like 'ought we execute murderers.'

link