" If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective."

you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations

since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity?

you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem

"Correlation does not mean causation."

true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on

"  Sweeden, Denmark, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan are mostly secular countries that are doing very well in terms of human rights and quality of life."

well i'd disagree Canada and Japan in particular seem to be descending into a particular kind of chaos that's ironically related to this same topic but i digress

"What value does a message have if you can't communicate it?"

does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel?

"By subjective criteria. We look at the data and come to the best supported ideas about the best way for a president to act.  And we judge based on that.  And since it's subjective, we wind up with people having differing opinions. "

why bother at all since its all subjective anyway? meaning nothing ( or in his case no particular behavior ) is objectively better than another so why bother? and yes there are different opinions with no weight to them because there's no objectivity... but of course no one really believes that, everyone does believe that some ways of being are better than others

you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations

since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity?

you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem

I'm not claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective.  The observations of human behavior are objective, assuming you have good ways to record them.  Claiming one pattern is best is the subjective part.  You can point out certain situations where the evidence is so overwhelming that we can say it's objective (like we shouldn't paint houses with lead paint), but in most cases it won't be that clear.

For example, the Roman Empire fell.  That is an objective observation.  It happened, no denying it.  Immigration led to the fall of the Roman Empire is a subjective opinion.  I may be able to support that with evidence, but I have no way to prove it.

true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on

We don't just see two things happening together and conclude it's highly likely that one is causing the other.  If you do that, you wind up with things like this.

What you do in the scientific method is devise an experiment that isolates one of the variables.  Then you run statistical tests.  And even then, you would still only have correlation.  

does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel?

JWeinCom said: o_O.Q said: " If the studies are done properly, the data an experiment yields should be objective."   you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity? you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem   "Correlation does not mean causation."   true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on "  Sweeden, Denmark, Israel, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan are mostly secular countries that are doing very well in terms of human rights and quality of life."   well i'd disagree Canada and Japan in particular seem to be descending into a particular kind of chaos that's ironically related to this same topic but i digress   "What value does a message have if you can't communicate it?"   does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel?   "By subjective criteria. We look at the data and come to the best supported ideas about the best way for a president to act.  And we judge based on that.  And since it's subjective, we wind up with people having differing opinions. "   why bother at all since its all subjective anyway? meaning nothing ( or in his case no particular behavior ) is objectively better than another so why bother? and yes there are different opinions with no weight to them because there's no objectivity... but of course no one really believes that, everyone does believe that some ways of being are better than others you were just arguing that subjectivity brings about a situation where we cannot determine which behavioral patterns are best despite us making observations since experiments under scientific method are always about repeated observations how can you seperate this away from being tainted by the problem of subjectivity? you have to realise that you can't have it both ways... if you are claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective because of our inherent subjectivity then it has to apply to all observations and that's the problem I'm not claiming that observations in one aspect cannot be objective.  The observations of human behavior are objective, assuming you have good ways to record them.  Claiming one pattern is best is the subjective part.  You can point out certain situations where the evidence is so overwhelming that we can say it's objective (like we shouldn't paint houses with lead paint), but in most cases it won't be that clear. For example, the Roman Empire fell.  That is an objective observation.  It happened, no denying it.  Immigration led to the fall of the Roman Empire is a subjective opinion.  I may be able to support that with evidence, but I have no way to prove it. true, but under the scientific method we accept that if we observe an event being repeated enough times that causation is highly likely... again  that's what the entire field of science relies on We don't just see two things happening together and conclude it's highly likely that one is causing the other.  If you do that, you wind up with things like this. What you do in the scientific method is devise an experiment that isolates one of the variables.  Then you run statistical tests.  And even then, you would still only have correlation.   does the fact that cars occasionally break down eliminate them from being a method of transportation? or stop people from using cars to travel? No, because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that cars work as a method of transportation.  If we had an overwhelming body of evidence that religion led to objective moral judgments (for example if we had tons of societies reading the bible and independently reaching the same moral systems) then the comparison would be apt.  But we don't have that. why bother at all since its all subjective anyway? meaning nothing ( or in his case no particular behavior ) is objectively better than another so why bother? and yes there are different opinions with no weight to them because there's no objectivity... but of course no one really believes that, everyone does believe that some ways of being are better than others Because subjective does not mean that all options are equal.   Just to use a simple example, I have enough money to buy one game for my nephew's birthday. Let's say I'm choosing between Zelda and Horizon.  Which one I think he'll like better is a subjective opinion.  I have no way of knowing for sure.  So, I try to find out what kinds of games he likes.  I go to his room and see it's decorated completely in Zelda merchandise and posters.  So, naturally I buy Zelda. I won't know if my decision was objectively right until he plays the game.  And even then, I can't be sure. Maybe he'll hate the new game.  Or maybe he'll like it, but if I got him Horizon, he would have liked it even more.  I have no way of knowing what the best decision is, but I can make a more educated subjective decision based on research and evidence.

" The observations of human behavior are objective, assuming you have good ways to record them.  Claiming one pattern is best is the subjective part."

my comment to the last comment you made in this post addresses this

"We don't just see two things happening together and conclude it's highly likely that one is causing the other."

true i didn't word that well

"What you do in the scientific method is devise an experiment that isolates one of the variables.  Then you run statistical tests.  And even then, you would still only have correlation.  "

so you are pretty much admitting to what i said previously that you are dismissing objective reality... if you are saying that the method we use to evaluate our environment simply reduces down to correlation

"No, because the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that cars work as a method of transportation."

yes when they are not broken down, correct... but they do break down and suffer from various issues that have to be maintained, the same way that forms of communication have to be maintained and if that maintainance is neglected like with a car the process breaks down

" If we had an overwhelming body of evidence that religion led to objective moral judgments (for example if we had tons of societies reading the bible and independently reaching the same moral systems"

i'd say that for many core christian values such as the golden rule, abstainance, charity that is actually the case

this doesn't mean that there is no variance between sects, but to try to claim that there is a massive disconnect between what the different denominations are teaching is not true

"Because subjective does not mean that all options are equal... "

your example is conflating personal preference with shared judgements between people which is what i was reffering to

the personal choice of an individual for one thing over another is inherently objective (edit: subjective typed objective by mistake)(since the person is making a choice based on some type of individual criteria)

that's completely different from individuals giving their opinion on behavior.... the point i was making is if there is no objective standard for behavior then the all opinions provided are pretty much equal since there is no standard for one to be better than another

and as i said just now that idea is rubbish since obviously everyone does believe that some behaviors are better then others

so you are pretty much admitting to what i said previously that you are dismissing objective reality... if you are saying that the method we use to evaluate our environment simply reduces down to correlation

I still haven't said that.  There are things that we can objectively observe.  That would be data.  That is our objective reality.  Our interpreation of this data is subjective.

It is for example an objective fact that objects with mass attract one another at a certain rate that we can calculate.  It may be my subjective evaluation that this phenomena is caused by gravitons.

yes when they are not broken down, correct... but they do break down and suffer from various issues that have to be maintained, the same way that forms of communication have to be maintained and if that maintainance is neglected like with a car the process breaks down

"There are things that we can objectively observe. "

the thing is from the line of reasoning you've been using i could argue that this is not really true... i could claim that all human observations are in fact subjective and biased due to our limitations 

for example yes we observe that objects fall to the ground, but for all we know what ever causes gravitation to occur could turn off tomorrow and we'd have to completely reassess our understanding of our environment

but of course we don't do this... we do say that some things we observe have occured so many times unaffected by changing variables that we conclude that they are part of objective reality and we use that as foundation to work from

"The difference is that there are lots of cars. "

there have been many tales through the century all with common themes - osiris, isis, horus |  nimrod, semaramis, tammuz  | zeus , hera , hercules etc etc etc

all were used to communicate an objective standard for how people and societies should conduct themselves

"  If religion actually helped objectively transmit morals, you should wind up with moral systems that are far more similar, if not practically identical.  That's what objective means."

and in the sense of their core values they are as i stated

"As for massive disconnects, christians have literally killed other christians for worshipping god the wrong way."

as i said an idea can be sound but the delivery of that idea because of our limitations can be flawed... as i've stated many times that does not invalidate the idea

you stated that we can make objective observations of the world... well how then do you reconcile that with people who think the earth is flat or hollow or that we never went to the moon or whatever? does the fact that some people go astray invalidate the observation? i'm sure you'd say not

"Even within one sect, you'll find tons of different views among the people.  To quote Matt Dillahunty"

i wonder what matt dillahunty would say about differences in conclusions between scientists?

"The example wasn't about personal choice.  It's not about buying which game I think is the best, it's about trying to predict an outcome based on a pattern, and looking for a positive outcome."

isn't buying what game you think is best personal choice? anyway what does this have to do with weighing different opinions between people?

"These are both subjective opinions.  We have no way of knowing for certain which will yield a better outcome"

a better outcome? didn't you previously completely throw out the idea that there's a better outcome?

" Your subjective opinion is clearly better supported than mine."

how? when we throw out the idea that one standard can be objective better than another standard?

"Subjective doesn't mean the same thing as arbitrary."

well actually it does if you throw out the idea that one standard can be better than another objectively

" I have beliefs about what behaviors are best.  These beliefs are subjective.  I believe they are well supported, but they may change with more data"

what's the point of worrying about it if you don't think the data is actually taking you to an objectively better standard?

the thing is from the line of reasoning you've been using i could argue that this is not really true... i could claim that all human observations are in fact subjective and biased due to our limitations 

for example yes we observe that objects fall to the ground, but for all we know what ever causes gravitation to occur could turn off tomorrow and we'd have to completely reassess our understanding of our environment

but of course we don't do this... we do say that some things we observe have occured so many times unaffected by changing variables that we conclude that they are part of objective reality and we use that as foundation to work from

The difference is our body of evidence.  We have literally trillions of examples of gravity working, and no examples of gravity failing.  And, it is incredibly easy to devise an experiment where we can isolate and test for gravity.  You could probably say that we can't 100% prove that gravity will always work, but based on our body of evidence it would be absurd to expect anything else.

We don't have this body of evidence for civilization and morality.  If I wanted to, I could test to see if gravity works at least 1000 times in the next hour. I could easily isolate gravity via experiment, but there are thousands of interacting factors, and it could take us years, decades, or centuries to truly examine how one factor effects civilization.

You can say that all human observations are biased due to our limitations, but not to the same degree.  Our limitations don't impede us all that much in analyzing gravity, especially since we have tools that can measure its impact in a purely objective manner.  So we can be practically 100% certain about that.  Our limitations in analyzing society itself are incredibly inhibiting, so we can't get anywhere near that degree of certainty.  That's why nobody really disputes gravity, and we have billions of moral disputes each day.

there have been many tales through the century all with common themes - osiris, isis, horus |  nimrod, semaramis, tammuz  | zeus , hera , hercules etc etc etc

all were used to communicate an objective standard for how people and societies should conduct themselves

as i said an idea can be sound but the delivery of that idea because of our limitations can be flawed... as i've stated many times that does not invalidate the idea

If your claim is that god makes objective morality possible, then there needs to be a reliable mechanism to transmit that morality.  If we can't transmit the message in an objective fashion, then objective morality is not possible.  By definition.  It doesn't matter where the flaw is.  

you stated that we can make objective observations of the world... well how then do you reconcile that with people who think the earth is flat or hollow or that we never went to the moon or whatever? does the fact that some people go astray invalidate the observation? i'm sure you'd say not

It again comes to the body of evidence.  We can demonstrate that the world is round.  We do it every day when planes fly or we see a ship coming up on the horizon, when we take photos of the earth, when we send up satellites etc.  The round Earth model is sufficient and neccessary to explain why these things work.  The flat Earth model is not.  Which is why there is overwhelming agreement in the scientific and lay community on this.

When given the evidence people reach the same conclusion well over 99% of the time.  If I send out a message and it's interpretted correctly by nearly every recipient, then I can confidently conclude the recipient is the problem.  

and in the sense of their core values they are as i stated

Sure.  You stated it.  I'm not really interested in what you state without evidence.

Let's stick with science.  People may arrive at these values (which I don't think are core to christianity at any rate) through religion, or through other means like secular methods or just plain chance.

Religion is one possible method.  No argument there.  But if we want to claim it is the best method, we would have to do a study.  We would have to compare the treatment group (the group that is exposed to religion) to the control group (the group not exposed to religion) to see if the treatment group gets to the same moral values with greater frequency.

Even if we don't go to the effort of making a study, we have enough data to make an informed opinion.  Based on sectarian divisions, sectarian violence, the prison rate of religious people vs atheists, and the quality of life differences between religious and non religious nations, I'd say there is a strong case to be made that religion does not do a good job of conveying morals. 

If you wanted to claim that religion objectively conveys morality, you'd need to take it a step further and show that religion leads to the same moral system nearly 100% of the time.  

i wonder what matt dillahunty would say about differences in conclusions between scientists?

I can't speak for him, but I would imagine he would say something along these lines.  Science has consistently shown itself to be the most reliable method to get to truth.  Since our methods are flawed, the process is not infallible.  That is why we have corrective mechanisms, such as the peer review process, that helps us reach the best possible conclusion based on our current knowledge.

isn't buying what game you think is best personal choice? anyway what does this have to do with weighing different opinions between people?

But that's not what I'm doing in this example.  I am not buying the game I think is best, I'm buying the game I think my nephew will like best.

My goal is to give my nephew as much enjoyment as possible.  He will get more enjoyment out of one game than the other.  This is an objective fact (ignoring the possibility that he likes them both the same).  

I don't have perfect knowledge of my nephew's inner workings, or the games themselves, so I can not objectively determine which game he'll like better.  That leaves me with two subjective options.  I think he will enjoy Zelda more, or I think he will enjoy Horizon more.  By weighing the evidence I have (data about my nephew) I could pick which of the subjective options will most likely get me to my goal.

a better outcome? didn't you previously completely throw out the idea that there's a better outcome?

No.  Assuming we agree on the standard or goal we want to achieve, then there can be objectively better or worse outcomes.  

If, for instance, we're doctors and we agree our goal is to keep a patient alive as long as possible, we might suggest two different courses of action to treat them. 

The patient will live longer with one treatment than the other, so one choice is objectively better. But our opinion on which option is better is subjective, since we can not predict the future.  By analyzing the data to the best of our ability, we are more likely to choose the better of our subjective choices and get to the better objectively better outcome (the patient living longer).

what's the point of worrying about it if you don't think the data is actually taking you to an objectively better standard?

Assuming we agree to the following statement "We want as many as people as possible to be able to live the best life possible as they define it", then we have a clear objective goal.  From there, we have opinions (by definition subjective) on how we can reach that goal.  

Naturally, I think my opinions on how we should act are the ones that will get us closest to this goal.  That's why I hold them.  But they're still subjective.  If they weren't, I would have no reason to try to learn about morality or to discuss morality ever again.

If you don't agree with that initial statement, then we are indeed at an impasse and it's pointless to discuss anything related to morality.

Edit:  At any rate, I think we're just going to go in circles here, so I'll just leave it at that.  It was a nice conversation even if I don't agree with you.  Later.

numberwang said: G. Washington did not believe in morality separated from religion. https://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/WashingtonFarewell.html

Well, good thing I don't look up to George Washington as a role model!

"Assuming we agree to the following statement "We want as many as people as possible to be able to live the best life possible as they define it", then we have a clear objective goal."

i suppose to end with i'm just wondering how you think its possible to have a society without this... i mean otherwise it should be obvious that you can't have a society

...why do you think we have police? do you not realise that the society you live in has to have some type of foundation that we do in fact treat objectively for people to work with?

I didn't really think it was that funny myself!

No, the human genome refers to all DNA. That paper identifies 80% of all DNA as being involved in at least one biochemical reaction although it also includes parts of the genome that may have a very minor effect.

The paper is part of ENCODE. The ENCODE project is a woldwide project that aims to discover all functionaility within the human genome and the first data was released in 2010. It's about to enter its next phase so we should hopefully have a pretty good idea of what all our DNA does within the next 10 years.