Frank Lovell Bruce Caithness THANKS. PROGRESS. Wanted to thank you for your help

Frank Lovell Bruce Caithness

THANKS. PROGRESS.

Wanted to thank you for your help over the past few days. I will never be able to repay your advice, patience and efforts.

While I didn’t quite solve the problem of connecting truth and ethics, I got much closer because of our conversation. (My fitful floundering and your criticisms.)

You helped me uncover a great insight into how to get to the answer that I am seeking.

I place so much value on scientific inquiry myself, and am so biased by it, that the obvious doesn’t always make it into my range of vision. Science is not commonly governed by exchange, but ethics are. Epistemologically speaking, the criteria of truth in physical science is a constant that is independent of our perception and never complete. But the criteria for truth in voluntary exchange is not quite the same. So when I make a promise, what is being exchanged? Is a scientist making a promise when he proposes theory? If so, what is he promising? If I testify in court, I am making a promise. What am I promising? When I say ‘the snow is white’, what am I promising? Only humans can act. Why is it that we are afraid of admitting or promises? Why do we anthropomorphize our utterances? (That is a very interesting question, and I think, the source of the problem in our language.)

The market for science is inverted. We “sell” products (theories) the value of which is their defects. In the consumer market, everyone else sells products the value of which is the fulfillment of their promises. In the political market, I think that the value of most ‘products’ is deception that can be used to justify the involuntary transfer of assets from some to others.

Scientists warranties its ethics, but not its products. A producer of goods warranties his products not his efforts. What does a politician or public intellectual warranty?

One step at a time. It’s like slogging through mud. lol

Cheers.

Curt