Discussion about this post

User's avatar
T-Bone's avatar

“When someone says that science is “in no sense” committed to ontological objectivity, the only reasonable interpretation of this is that it is not committed to ontological objectivity, full stop. “

Yes, he could have been more precise: “science is in no sense *solely* committed to ontological objectivity”

He understands “ontological objectivity” to mean real physical objects that multiple people can experience. To deny that science is concerned with this would be insane.

His punchline is that science can also concern itself with ontological subjectivity - including states of subjective well being. Hence, his science of morals.

This is a simple misunderstanding- why dig in and hold him to a view he demonstrably does not hold and that stems from misspeaking ?

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts