Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Confessions of an Ex-Moralist"

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:27:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

I'm an expressivist (type of moral nihilist). Twas a fascinating article.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:32:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I consider myself a progressive nihilist. The stance is best summarized by Douglas Adam's three stages of civilization:

1. How do we eat?
2. Why do we eat?
3. What's for lunch?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:41:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

though I don't self-describe myself as a Nihilist.. I am a full-out relativist and many would count that as being a Moral Nihilist.

People do this b/c they figure "morality" denotes Universal Oughts.. Oughts which describe the nature of things Broadly.

Anyone who describes themselves as a Moral Relativist clearly thinks "morality" simply deals with Oughts...

Now... this is the difference.. This guy calls himself a moral nihilist b/c he takes Morality as denoting some Universal oughts.

that's fine.. However this doesn't mean he can't still think things Ought to be done a certain way..

for there's no reason he wouldn't still Care how things go.

I certainly care how things go.. I have My Oughts.. And I will Assert them and seek that they be fulfilled.

If he doesn't want to call that "morality" fine.. but that doesn't mean Ethics is dead... if anything coming to this realization ought to Re-invigorate Ethical discussion.. for it should drive people to figure out common cares, ways of arguing Given those cares.. and Actually give people some relevant Material with which to work.. and an understanding of how to go about bridging gaps...
Under a Paradigm of Universal Morality.. people of Opposing views can't really explain Why they think what they do.. they just assert it and keep Banging heads against each other.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:42:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've pretty much come to the same conclusion as this gentleman, although I've chosen to redefine morality in terms of personal utility instead of metaphysical "right and wrong." I suppose I should just accept the fact that I'm a nihilst and stop trying to re-write philosophy terms :P
Rob
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:46:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
yeah this guy's a moral relativist as moral relativists would describe themselves..

he just apparently doesn't like the term moral relativist...

it's not the way he speaks... that's fine.. it's the same thing whatever you call it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:55:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:41:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

though I don't self-describe myself as a Nihilist.. I am a full-out relativist and many would count that as being a Moral Nihilist.

People do this b/c they figure "morality" denotes Universal Oughts.. Oughts which describe the nature of things Broadly.

Anyone who describes themselves as a Moral Relativist clearly thinks "morality" simply deals with Oughts...

Now... this is the difference.. This guy calls himself a moral nihilist b/c he takes Morality as denoting some Universal oughts.

that's fine.. However this doesn't mean he can't still think things Ought to be done a certain way..

for there's no reason he wouldn't still Care how things go.

I certainly care how things go.. I have My Oughts.. And I will Assert them and seek that they be fulfilled.

If he doesn't want to call that "morality" fine.. but that doesn't mean Ethics is dead... if anything coming to this realization ought to Re-invigorate Ethical discussion.. for it should drive people to figure out common cares, ways of arguing Given those cares.. and Actually give people some relevant Material with which to work.. and an understanding of how to go about bridging gaps...
Under a Paradigm of Universal Morality.. people of Opposing views can't really explain Why they think what they do.. they just assert it and keep Banging heads against each other.

Just a small note - I think many people (perhaps most?) conceive of real ethics in terms of objectivity because of reasons like this:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

If that kind of morality doesn't exist then there is no morality worth having.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:55:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:52:18 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Speaking of nihilism and relativism...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...

see.. I would Foist my rights and wrongs upon you whether you'd have them or not ;)

I'd rather you want them.. And I'd like to get you to by argument or trickery..

but I'd do it by force too if it seemed best.

People don't usually like moral relativism b/c they think it lacks the Bite that they intuitively feel Morality should have. They are however Mistaken. Given individual Care-based morality.. there's no reason not to try to apply your morality Broadly.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:59:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:56:11 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:52:18 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Speaking of nihilism and relativism...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...

Lol.

Isn't that Ragnar's great-great-grandfather? The contract clearly called for relinquishment of first-born if interest was not paid in full...
Rob
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:08:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:55:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Just a small note - I think many people (perhaps most?) conceive of real ethics in terms of objectivity because of reasons like this:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

If that kind of morality doesn't exist then there is no morality worth having.

lol why don't you talk instead?

I already said how Care-based morality ought to Re-invigorate Ethical discussions by actually providing a Framework in which ethical arguments can be had (as Opposed to the Lack of common material amongst Disagreeing Moral absolutists).

People who disagree in their assertions can find out why... if they share similar Cares, and disagree in their reasoning or Understanding of the world.. Reasoning can be the path to reconciliation.

Or if they find that they simply care about different things, they can Best take stock of the situation.. and try to reason for Their goals from the Other person's cares.. and hope to find success that way.

Even the guy from your first article Seems to agree that Ethics is Very much still alive despite the Death of Absolute Morality.. for at the bottom of that first article it mentions he has a book about Ethics After Morality or some such thing.

As I've explained.. the Death of Objective Morality should very much invigorate and Progress ethical discussions.. it does enter you into a bit of a "maze" of cares.. but you can make MUCH more progress in a Maze than you can when confronted with a Brick wall.
discussions amongst people who claim to Objective morality are discussions amongst stubborn mules who Not Only ultimately can't explain why they assert what they do.. but get annoyed with their counterpart for being So very much like themselves.

If you get someone who can actually explain why they assert what they do you can understand their perspective and there's a possibility for Substantial common ground being that Humans do often seem to be rather similar.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:37:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also your second article was off topic/irrelevant

I clearly was basing relativistic "right and wrong" in Individual's cares.. and explained sufficiently how such Understandings come to be...

your second article was arguing against sourcing "right and wrong" to societies particualar "moral codes".. as this doesn't end in normative statements.

Mine DOES end in normative statements.. it says Given that you care about x, y, and z.. and given how the world is.. This or that Ought be done.

Not... this ought to be done according to these people..

but Given these cares, this Ought be done.

oughts simply don't exist w/o a subject who cares.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:40:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 9:37:49 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
oughts simply don't exist w/o a subject who cares.

what's hilarious is that Even "God's" morality can't get around this one without sounding ridiculous...

For why's it moral but that God cares!?
No Reason whatsoever.

And, well.. if I care differently than god.. well... guess what.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:42:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 9:40:20 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/23/2011 9:37:49 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
oughts simply don't exist w/o a subject who cares.

what's hilarious is that Even "God's" morality can't get around this one without sounding ridiculous...

For why's it moral but that God cares!?
No Reason whatsoever.

those who put Morality over God though, saying: God does it b/c it's Moral, Are however on the right track..

For in reality they're putting Their Cares above God.
they just don't realize it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 10:53:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I read part of it. Will read the rest when it's not midnight. I've just noticed between discussions with moral nihilists and reading a few books by moral nihilists (Mackie) that they've defined objective morality in such a way that it is a logical impossibility. They hold such stringent epistemic views concerning what would really "qualify" as moral knowledge, but these attitudes are applied very selectively to only morality and nothing else.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:05:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

I believe in a bit of a spin-off, though not suggested for most. I am of the belief that all moral systems attempted to derive from "is" have no grounding, leaving "ought to ought" systems.

I acknowledge nihilism, the fact that my system is no more "right" than anothers, and I get on with life.

As an "ought to ought" propositions, progressive (or whatever it might be called) nihilism, you can recognize the "ultimate meaninglessness" of life and still adopt and enforce set of moral assumptions regardless of the "rationality" of them.

This general attitude is highly influenced by modern neurology and psychology. The part of our brain that thinks about utilitarianism is not the same part of the brain that responds to watching a child being tortured.

http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 10:53:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I read part of it. Will read the rest when it's not midnight. I've just noticed between discussions with moral nihilists and reading a few books by moral nihilists (Mackie) that they've defined objective morality in such a way that it is a logical impossibility. They hold such stringent epistemic views concerning what would really "qualify" as moral knowledge, but these attitudes are applied very selectively to only morality and nothing else.

So you see inconsistency in saying that moral knowledge doesn't exist without saying other forms of knowledge also don't exist?

I am prepared to defend the article since it's close enough to my system.
Rob
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:04:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

I don't think they did.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 6:37:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:41:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

though I don't self-describe myself as a Nihilist.. I am a full-out relativist and many would count that as being a Moral Nihilist.

People do this b/c they figure "morality" denotes Universal Oughts.. Oughts which describe the nature of things Broadly.

Anyone who describes themselves as a Moral Relativist clearly thinks "morality" simply deals with Oughts...:

Nonsense. You're describing absolutists, not relativists.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 6:40:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 6:37:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:41:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/23/2011 8:14:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
No, the topic title is definitely not in reference to me. :P

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

It's too bad the moral nihilists left. I wonder what they would have thought about the article.

though I don't self-describe myself as a Nihilist.. I am a full-out relativist and many would count that as being a Moral Nihilist.

People do this b/c they figure "morality" denotes Universal Oughts.. Oughts which describe the nature of things Broadly.

Anyone who describes themselves as a Moral Relativist clearly thinks "morality" simply deals with Oughts...:

Nonsense. You're describing absolutists, not relativists.

huh?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:04:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:10:11 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:53:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I read part of it. Will read the rest when it's not midnight. I've just noticed between discussions with moral nihilists and reading a few books by moral nihilists (Mackie) that they've defined objective morality in such a way that it is a logical impossibility. They hold such stringent epistemic views concerning what would really "qualify" as moral knowledge, but these attitudes are applied very selectively to only morality and nothing else.

So you see inconsistency in saying that moral knowledge doesn't exist without saying other forms of knowledge also don't exist?

I am prepared to defend the article since it's close enough to my system.

Yes, and I've discussed this with moral nihilists. I didn't read the whole article, is the writer a nihilist/are you a nihilist?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:59:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
All these problems come from the fact that people still can't wrap their head around the fact that moral statements are almost invariably incomplete assertions.

To say, "This is right" means nothing. Right for what?

The incomplete understanding of morality that most people have is the reason we have moral nihilists. Because of course you are going to reject something if you don't know what it is, and it sounds stupid.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 4:41:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:59:28 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
All these problems come from the fact that people still can't wrap their head around the fact that moral statements are almost invariably incomplete assertions.

To say, "This is right" means nothing. Right for what?


The incomplete understanding of morality that most people have is the reason we have moral nihilists. Because of course you are going to reject something if you don't know what it is, and it sounds stupid.

You can formulate normative systems with truth statements as long as you acknowledge a set or premises to begin with.

So, if you say "If I want to minimize the harm inflincted on others, then..."

"If I want to minimize harm to others, I should kill every person I see." is false.

Notice the system always remains within the "ought" side. If it tries to travel to the "is" side then the system loses its ability to assign truth values.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 5:09:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 4:41:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:59:28 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
All these problems come from the fact that people still can't wrap their head around the fact that moral statements are almost invariably incomplete assertions.

To say, "This is right" means nothing. Right for what?


The incomplete understanding of morality that most people have is the reason we have moral nihilists. Because of course you are going to reject something if you don't know what it is, and it sounds stupid.

You can formulate normative systems with truth statements as long as you acknowledge a set or premises to begin with.


This is what I'm saying.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 8:35:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:04:23 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:10:11 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:53:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I read part of it. Will read the rest when it's not midnight. I've just noticed between discussions with moral nihilists and reading a few books by moral nihilists (Mackie) that they've defined objective morality in such a way that it is a logical impossibility. They hold such stringent epistemic views concerning what would really "qualify" as moral knowledge, but these attitudes are applied very selectively to only morality and nothing else.

So you see inconsistency in saying that moral knowledge doesn't exist without saying other forms of knowledge also don't exist?

I am prepared to defend the article since it's close enough to my system.

Yes, and I've discussed this with moral nihilists. I didn't read the whole article, is the writer a nihilist/are you a nihilist?

I believe both he and I are. We both put forth moral truths, but admit that there is no deeper sense of morality other than doing what is simply "right" for the sake of being the best thing to do, if that makes any sense.
Rob
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 8:43:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 8:35:18 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/24/2011 10:04:23 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 8/23/2011 11:10:11 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 8/23/2011 10:53:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I read part of it. Will read the rest when it's not midnight. I've just noticed between discussions with moral nihilists and reading a few books by moral nihilists (Mackie) that they've defined objective morality in such a way that it is a logical impossibility. They hold such stringent epistemic views concerning what would really "qualify" as moral knowledge, but these attitudes are applied very selectively to only morality and nothing else.

So you see inconsistency in saying that moral knowledge doesn't exist without saying other forms of knowledge also don't exist?

I am prepared to defend the article since it's close enough to my system.

Yes, and I've discussed this with moral nihilists. I didn't read the whole article, is the writer a nihilist/are you a nihilist?

I believe both he and I are. We both put forth moral truths, but admit that there is no deeper sense of morality other than doing what is simply "right" for the sake of being the best thing to do, if that makes any sense.

Could you clarify this a little? You can't put forth legitimate "moral truths" as a moral nihilist. A moral nihilist probably thinks about morality the same way most of us think about ice cream: I might like vanilla (secular humanism), but truth be told it's not fundamentally better than strawberry (nazism) or black raspberry (stalinism). With that said, it becomes vacuous to advance your ethics as anything more than your personal feelings at the time.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 9:04:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 8:43:15 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I might like vanilla (secular humanism), but truth be told it's not fundamentally better than strawberry (nazism) or black raspberry (stalinism). With that said, it becomes vacuous to advance your ethics as anything more than your personal feelings at the time.

but you can see if others happen to feel similarly..

if they do have relevantly similar cares.. then you can reason with them as to what ought to be done Given those cares.

Supporting a particular course of action is NOT analagous to liking a flavor of icecream...

Many likes and dislikes, as well as facts about the world, go into deciding which course of action to pursue..

if you Can find relevantly similar likes and dislikes in common... Then you can argue from those, and from how the world is, to say what ought be done.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2011 10:19:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Supporting a particular course of action is NOT analagous to liking a flavor of icecream...

We're not talking about a course of action, we're talking about oughts.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2011 7:58:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/24/2011 10:19:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Supporting a particular course of action is NOT analagous to liking a flavor of icecream...

We're not talking about a course of action, we're talking about oughts.

what one Ought to do.. no?

what Ought be done...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."