Prev: Fairy scenes
Next: If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it betrusted determine so much in society?
From: Immortalista on 15 Jul 2010 23:17
I see many people try and disguise a value judgment as some sort of
fact or just a value free description. How can one tell when someone
is explaining some facts or just trying you to get interested in what
he or she likes? You know, how some people insist that it is factual
that certain kinds of music is better than others.

Value judgements include
statements about what is
good and what people
ought to do.

They contrast with statements
of fact, whose acceptance
does not (necessarily)
entail action.

'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).

Another terminology is that;

value statements are practical,
while purely factual statements
are theoretical (Quinton 1973).

Programs of the brain.
J. Z. Young 1978
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
From: bigfletch8 on 16 Jul 2010 03:09
On Jul 16, 11:17 am, Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I see many people try and disguise a value judgment as some sort of
> fact or just a value free description. How can one tell when someone
> is explaining some facts or just trying you to get interested in what
> he or she likes? You know, how some people insist that it is factual
> that certain kinds of music is better than others.
>
>  Value judgements include
>  statements about what is
>  good and what people
>  ought to do.
>
>  They contrast with statements
>  of fact, whose acceptance
>  does not (necessarily)
>  entail action.
>
> 'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
> implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
> statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).
>
> Another terminology is that;
>
>  value statements are practical,
>  while purely factual statements
>  are theoretical (Quinton 1973).
>
> Programs of the brain.
> J. Z. Young 1978http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/

Great questions and even greater answers (he said humbly).

If you consider the idea of the laws of synchronicity (whereby people
show up in your life for mutual benefit)then the question becomes
'does what they say reverberate with me, either confirming positively
or negatively my pov?

In that case it matters not if they are trying to convince you or not.
(In that situation, they are only trying to convince them self).

An example would be the music scenario.

It is observable how different music effects the brain. Soothing music
'lights up' the deeper reflective states, where some music whips up
the adrenal glands reaction !!!War drums being a good example (Our
ancestors knew a thing of two without the help of 'brain lighting
systems' :-)

That is not arguable, but what is also not arguable is the fact that a
person chooses either for their own subjective reasons (which is never
constructively arguable)

BOfL

From: Daniel T. on 16 Jul 2010 07:54
Immortalista <extropy1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> I see many people try and disguise a value judgment as some sort of
> fact or just a value free description. How can one tell when someone
> is explaining some facts or just trying you to get interested in what
> he or she likes? You know, how some people insist that it is factual
> that certain kinds of music is better than others.
>
> Value judgements include
> statements about what is
> good and what people
> ought to do.
>
> They contrast with statements
> of fact, whose acceptance
> does not (necessarily)
> entail action.
>
> 'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
> implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
> statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).
>
> Another terminology is that;
>
> value statements are practical,
> while purely factual statements
> are theoretical (Quinton 1973).
>
> Programs of the brain.
> J. Z. Young 1978
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/

What about "that smells nice" and "that smells bad"?

It turns out that these are not value judgments at all, they are
statements of fact. (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/20/10712.full)

Who's to say how many more of these so-called value judgements will fall
to science?
From: Zinnic on 16 Jul 2010 09:10
On Jul 16, 6:54 am, "Daniel T." <danie...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> Immortalista <extro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I see many people try and disguise a value judgment as some sort of
> > fact or just a value free description. How can one tell when someone
> > is explaining some facts or just trying you to get interested in what
> > he or she likes? You know, how some people insist that it is factual
> > that certain kinds of music is better than others.
>
> >  Value judgements include
> >  statements about what is
> >  good and what people
> >  ought to do.
>
> >  They contrast with statements
> >  of fact, whose acceptance
> >  does not (necessarily)
> >  entail action.
>
> > 'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that child'
> > implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that value
> > statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare 1963).
>
> > Another terminology is that;
>
> >  value statements are practical,
> >  while purely factual statements
> >  are theoretical (Quinton 1973).
>
> > Programs of the brain.
> > J. Z. Young 1978
> >http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
>
> What about "that smells nice" and "that smells bad"?
>
> It turns out that these are not value judgments at all, they are
> statements of fact. (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/20/10712.full)
>
> Who's to say how many more of these so-called value judgements will fall
> to science?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Many will judge that molecular conformation of receptor sites have no
philosopical value and that's a fact. They dismiss 'hard' science and
prefer self-serving 'easy' speculation. :-)
From: Daniel T. on 16 Jul 2010 19:10
jigo <retired(a)home.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > Immortalista <extropy1(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I see many people try and disguise a value judgment as some sort
> > > of fact or just a value free description. How can one tell when
> > > someone is explaining some facts or just trying you to get
> > > interested in what he or she likes? You know, how some people
> > > insist that it is factual that certain kinds of music is better
> > > than others.
> > >
> > > Value judgements include statements about what is good and what
> > > people ought to do.
> > >
> > > They contrast with statements of fact, whose acceptance does not
> > > (necessarily) entail action.
> > >
> > > 'It is raining' is merely factual. 'You ought not to hit that
> > > child' implies a value judgement. One way of putting this is that
> > > value statements are prescriptive, not purely descriptive (Hare
> > > 1963).
> > >
> > > Another terminology is that;
> > >
> > > value statements are practical, while purely factual statements
> > > are theoretical (Quinton 1973).
> > >
> > > Programs of the brain. J. Z. Young 1978
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/
> >
> > What about "that smells nice" and "that smells bad"?
> >
> > It turns out that these are not value judgments at all, they are
> > statements of fact. (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/20/10712.full)
> >
> > Who's to say how many more of these so-called value judgements will
> > fall to science?
>
> Smelling nice or bad are questions of fact depending on the
> characteristics of the smeller. That is subjective but still has a
> factual answer; it's different in kind from questions of "should."

"Should" assumes a goal, given a particular goal, it is generally quite
objective as to what actions will further that goal and what actions
will not.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Fairy scenes
Next: If Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences" how can it betrusted determine so much in society?