I believe it was Hume who pointed out the IS/OUGHT paradox as a vulnerability of the scientific method. That is, there is nothing about knowing what IS that can inform as to what OUGHT to be. And we suffer from this paradox today risking existential threats emerging from the application of technological developments (the hydrogen bomb, AI that lies, etc.). This analysis of knowledge vs values displays the paradox. To my way of thinking, knowledge only answers the question of CAN; can something be done. Knowledge actually is incapable of enlightening the question of whether or not something OUGHT be done. To view the is/ought paradox as simply a reflection of knowledge vs values is simplistic and misguided. It does not illuminate choice that brings nobility to the human spirit.
I hadn't considered the is/ought paradox; I am admittedly unfamiliar with Hume's work. I was simply observing the sometimes hypocritical vacillation between foundational perspectives many people utilize based on what they feel better serves their argument.
I like what you say about knowledge's ability to determine if something can be done, as opposed to its inability to determine if something should be done. Spot on.
There's actually a lot written about this by many people (most of whom I've never read), but my principal lens is that of Jung and his orientation toward introjected beliefs and I agree with this framework.
I'd love to have you on Noggin Notes to discuss this - and other topics - at some point if you're up for it. I'll shoot you an email, I think we've kicked the can down the road long enough; it's been a year!
I believe it was Hume who pointed out the IS/OUGHT paradox as a vulnerability of the scientific method. That is, there is nothing about knowing what IS that can inform as to what OUGHT to be. And we suffer from this paradox today risking existential threats emerging from the application of technological developments (the hydrogen bomb, AI that lies, etc.). This analysis of knowledge vs values displays the paradox. To my way of thinking, knowledge only answers the question of CAN; can something be done. Knowledge actually is incapable of enlightening the question of whether or not something OUGHT be done. To view the is/ought paradox as simply a reflection of knowledge vs values is simplistic and misguided. It does not illuminate choice that brings nobility to the human spirit.
Interesting.
I hadn't considered the is/ought paradox; I am admittedly unfamiliar with Hume's work. I was simply observing the sometimes hypocritical vacillation between foundational perspectives many people utilize based on what they feel better serves their argument.
I like what you say about knowledge's ability to determine if something can be done, as opposed to its inability to determine if something should be done. Spot on.
Thanks for responding, Ned. ZL
There's actually a lot written about this by many people (most of whom I've never read), but my principal lens is that of Jung and his orientation toward introjected beliefs and I agree with this framework.
I'd love to have you on Noggin Notes to discuss this - and other topics - at some point if you're up for it. I'll shoot you an email, I think we've kicked the can down the road long enough; it's been a year!
My perception is conception. Thanks man.